http://www.privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?p=143453#post143453

Long story short:

Army Builder is a trademarked name and Lone Wolf Development doesn't like it being used as a generic term for army list generating software. They demand that Privateer Press enforces LWD's policy on PP's forum, or else.

Always classy, PP responds by wordfiltering all references to Army Builder from their forum


In my own opinion, this is rather funny coming from a company whose entire business model is based on copyright infringement.

Anyone ever hear of Free Advertising heheh

Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

Well, do you think every G-Dub C&D letter would stand up in court? Did they do it anyways? Yes they did.

Flachzange wrote:

filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

Well, do you think every G-Dub C&D letter would stand up in court? Did they do it anyways? Yes they did.

Actually, yes, I do think a lot of GW's C&D claims would stand up in court. That doesn't mean I agree with it but there you are. However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

I'm almost certain PP's overreaction was done on purpose and is delightfully spiteful.

lord_blackfang wrote:In my own opinion, this is rather funny coming from a company whose entire business model is based on copyright infringement.

Their business model is built around a gaming aid. Their end user agreement stipulate you own any book that accompanies the rules you use with in their program. That isn't copyright infringement. This is an ostentatious calculator, preset numerical values. Beyond that it self organizes what the user already owns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the issue of LoneWolf's c&d I believe it is valid. The Army Builder name I believe is a registered trademark. P&P's use is legally equivalent to them making a game called Warhammer 40,000. I think this is an honest mistake on their part and the action taken by P&P is appropriate to protecting them from legal repercussions.

aka_mythos wrote: Their end user agreement stipulate you own any book that accompanies the rules you use with in their program. That isn't copyright infringement.

Ha ha ha. How many EULAs do you know of that have stood up in court. I'd be willing to bet that at least half the people using Army Builder never even read the EULA. (Just like with every other EULA out there.)

Actually, EULA's stand up in court all the time. If you chose to click the "ok" button when you haven't read the EULA, it's just like signing loan documents without reading them. (Electronic "signatures" have held up in court, too.)

While no court has rendered a decision in regard to ALL such "click here" type EUL Agreements, there have been many that have, in fact, held up in court. One of the precedents stated that, since the buyer had to "agree" to the EULA before installation of the software was complete, then it was binding. I don't know if Army Builder requires EULA acceptance prior to installation or not.

Anyway, you can do a pretty quick internet search for the enforceability of EULAs. It depends on the nature of the specific EULA and the court that has heard it.

filbert wrote:

Flachzange wrote:

filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

Well, do you think every G-Dub C&D letter would stand up in court? Did they do it anyways? Yes they did.

Actually, yes, I do think a lot of GW's C&D claims would stand up in court. That doesn't mean I agree with it but there you are. However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

It wasn't a generic term until they created their program. Army builder has been a trademark for at least a decade. It's similar to Coca Cola trademarking the term "coke". Everyone might use the phrase coke to refer to cola drinks, but Pepsi and the others aren't allowed to advertise their drinkl as a coke.

Love the PP response. No problem we'll make sure no one ever discusses your product accidentally (or intentionally) on our boards again. That will come along with posting your entire C&D letter. Thank you for your threats to sue us and have a nice day.

Essentially an appropriately worded EULA protects the supplier, not the consumer.

EULA's hold up extremely well. Too well actually. There is actually a growing movement among law makers to reform them because they work so well to the benefit of the EULA's creator that many see them to be inherently anti-consumer.

I read all my EULA every time I buy a game or software. Only idiots ignore it. Its a legally binding contract.

Agree, mythos.

Mostly, where EULA's have been found against in court has been in cases where someone, like a distributor, purchases bulk copies of software bundles, and then resells them "unbundled" as discreet parts.

In some areas, courts have found in the favor of the distributor using the "first sale" concept that allows the original buyer of a copyrighted piece of material to later sell that item without having to deal with the original copyright holder.

As I don't play any of their games, I've never bothered to join their forums.

Anyone care to paste the attachments here for those of us who aren't members?

Thanks in advance!

Eric

No its not a virus. (lol).


Attached is the C&D

I'm not really sure what the fuss is about. AB sent a letter saying "Hey, we don't appreciate you using our registered trademark, so knock it off and we'll call it good."

Yeah, AB could have chosen a less generic name for their product, but they do have a legal trademark for it and have to defend it or lose it (I think). Unless I'm mistaken, it's pretty cut and dry.

EDIT: I was refering to the letter sent to ForwardKommander, not PP. Oops. The one to PP is significantly different, and is slightly more heavy-handed, as it's a bit much to expect that kind of control on a forum board. TBH, I think PP went overboard too, as something along the lines of a sticky and doing some copy-paste might have been enough. Dunno.

Wow, that letter makes PP kind of look like asshats over the whole thing.

Gornall wrote:I'm not really sure what the fuss is about. AB sent a letter saying "Hey, we don't appreciate you using our registered trademark, so knock it off and we'll call it good."

Yeah, AB could have chosen a less generic name for their product, but they do have a legal trademark for it and have to defend it or lose it (I think). Unless I'm mistaken, it's pretty cut and dry.

AB actually send a letter saying "Hey people not affiliated with your organization but participating on your public forums are using our registered trademark, so make them stop or we'll sue you in 72 hours."

Moz wrote:

Gornall wrote:I'm not really sure what the fuss is about. AB sent a letter saying "Hey, we don't appreciate you using our registered trademark, so knock it off and we'll call it good."

Yeah, AB could have chosen a less generic name for their product, but they do have a legal trademark for it and have to defend it or lose it (I think). Unless I'm mistaken, it's pretty cut and dry.

AB actually send a letter saying "Hey people not affiliated with your organization but participating on your public forums are using our registered trademark, so make them stop or we'll sue you in 72 hours."

Yeah... I had read the letter to ForwardKommander and assumed it was the same type of letter. And everyone one knows what assuming does. The PP letter is a little more out there, as it basically amounts to telling people they can't refer to non-Coca Cola products as Cokes. If you've ever been to the south, everything is a "Coke".

aka_mythos wrote:EULA's hold up extremely well. Too well actually. There is actually a growing movement among law makers to reform them because they work so well to the benefit of the EULA's creator that many see them to be inherently anti-consumer.

I read all my EULA every time I buy a game or software. Only idiots ignore it. Its a legally binding contract.

I guess you're not like most people. Judging simply from reading posts on this forum, more people don't own every codex that they use AB for than do.

You're right, this does protect the EULA creator, but I think it's a little ironic for a company that is clearly profiting from the abuse of other people's IP (even if their EULA states otherwise) to go whining about their trademark.

I wonder how far PP could get if they pursued the opposite strategy, of forcing Wolflair not to support their copyrighted material. Only the fans would suffer in the end, I suppose.

...

*facepalm*

Once again, this goes over the head of the general masses:

This isn't to prevent you from saying "Army Builder" as many times as you want.

This seems to be an attempt, just like the Blood Bowl fiasco, to keep other companies from using a specific title in a role that they shouldn't.

You can use "Army Builder" when referring to the product itself, but you can't use "army builder" in a generic sense.

Boy, I sure enjoy software that builds armies. Building armies using predefined data files is fun, quick and easy. I usually digitally build my armies, experimenting with different unit/model configurations before I purchase the models. Sometimes, while waiting for primer/base coat to dry, I turn to my computer and digitally build armies.

That letter is ridiculous. I doubt I'll be buying a new subscription for a program that digitally builds armies.

I'm more of the opinion that it's you can, say for example:

Forward Kommander: Warmachines & Hordes Army Building Utility

and not:
Forward Kommander: Army Builder for Warmachines & Hordes.

The second phrasing makes it seem like it's Lone Wolf's product being licensed out, rather than a separate entity.

It's easy for Forward Kommander to fix that though. It's something else entirely to have to police your forums for those "misuses".

Except that's not what Lone Wolf asked.

That's what Privateer did out of pettiness.

They specifically asked that all the references be removed/edited.

Interesting.

Problem is to read the fething announcement I have to register for Privateer's forums, and I don't have enough interest to.

Kanluwen wrote:Except that's not what Lone Wolf asked.

That's what Privateer did out of pettiness.

No really, Lonewolf asks that PP delete all posts referring to army builder as a generic term and then apply a filter to the term army builder to something that is not property of Lonewolf.

Unfortunately, there are active references to other tools on your site that misappropriate our trademark. In addition, this misuse by others has led to multiple posters on your forums using the term "army builder" to describe the category of tools. This needs to be remedied, and, under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, we require your assistance in doing so.
There are two things that need to be done. First of all, improper references to the Army Builder trademark on the forums must be addressed. This can be achieved in either of two ways, or potentially a combination of both, at your discretion. The first option would be to remove such posts. Since this could appear harsh and potentially disrupt forum discussions, an acceptable alternative would be to revise such posts to utilize a generic term (e.g. "roster construction tool", "list createor", or "points calculator") in place of the "Army Builder" name.

i have the letter attached in my posts above - check it out.

Kanluwen wrote:Except that's not what Lone Wolf asked.

That's what Privateer did out of pettiness.

They asked that Privateer check every instance that exists on their forums of the term "REMOVED BY LONE WOLF" and make sure it was referring to the actual program and not a generic tool set. Within 72 hours. In addition, they asked that PP monitor every thread in every forum for that term to ensure it only references their specific program in all future postings.

I think the response was golden.

Basically, LWD is asking for two things:

1. All "incorrect" references to "army builders" be removed/edited.
2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

@AoE: I think they had 72 hours to contact them, not neccessarily fix everything.

Deleted. See restatement of my key points on page 5 instead.

Very interesting.

But it was kinda petty of Privateer to do what they did, rather than just a sticky note.

Meh.

Gornall wrote:Basically, LWD is asking for two things:

1. All "incorrect" references to "army builders" be removed/edited.
2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

@AoE: I think they had 72 hours to contact them, not neccessarily fix everything.

"Assuming that the improper references to tools using the name "Army Builder" are rectified and you confirm to us within 72 hours that you have done so."

Kan, a public download was linked earlier in this thread.

I'm going to start referring to all my tanks as warmachines, and all my infantry as hordes. They're rather generic terms, wouldn't you agree?

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Gornall wrote:Basically, LWD is asking for two things:

1. All "incorrect" references to "army builders" be removed/edited.
2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

@AoE: I think they had 72 hours to contact them, not neccessarily fix everything.

Either one of which LWD surely knew was impossible to actually accomplish, yet they went ahead with their harebrained idea anyway. Well, I've sent my two cents by email to them directly, I suggest interested parties do the same.

That email, for interested parties;

rob@wolflair.com

AgeOfEgos wrote:"Assuming that the improper references to tools using the name "Army Builder" are rectified and you confirm to us within 72 hours that you have done so."

I stand corrected.

@Agamemnon2: The second one is actually pretty easy to do. Posting a sticky or adding it to the forum rules should suffice. In any case, they are required by law to defend their trademark or lose it.

aka_mythos wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:In my own opinion, this is rather funny coming from a company whose entire business model is based on copyright infringement.

Their business model is built around a gaming aid. Their end user agreement stipulate you own any book that accompanies the rules you use with in their program. That isn't copyright infringement. This is an ostentatious calculator, preset numerical values. Beyond that it self organizes what the user already owns.

This is technically true... in the exactly same way it's true that torrent sites like Piratebay aren't doing anything illegal. Legally, Lone Wolf is in the clear, but we all know the major selling point of their product is the ability to illegally share intellectual property.

I have a free Army Builder (TM) that I use: book, paper, pencil, calculator.

lord_blackfang wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:In my own opinion, this is rather funny coming from a company whose entire business model is based on copyright infringement.

Their business model is built around a gaming aid. Their end user agreement stipulate you own any book that accompanies the rules you use with in their program. That isn't copyright infringement. This is an ostentatious calculator, preset numerical values. Beyond that it self organizes what the user already owns.

This is technically true... in the exactly same way it's true that torrent sites like Piratebay aren't doing anything illegal. Legally, Lone Wolf is in the clear, but we all know the major selling point of their product is the ability to illegally share intellectual property.

The major selling point would be ease of use. Although it's possible to create an army list without having to actually own the codex, the summary rules in the AB files are typically so simplified it'd be like gaming with a BoLS Rumour summary in place of your codex.

(At least they were for v2 of the program. Couldn't find a cracked version of v3 on piratebay )

I knew there were other good reasons not to spend $30 or more on a program that also required a subscription update. Classic.

Le Grognard wrote:I have a free Army Builder (TM) that I use: book, paper, pencil, calculator.

Agreed.

Although, lately I've been using Microsoft Word.

I made an army builder with excel.

Moz wrote:No really, Lonewolf asks that PP delete all posts referring to army builder as a generic term and then apply a filter to the term army builder to something that is not property of Lonewolf.

Which I find a little puzzling, to be honest.

Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

I'd be curious (not enough to do any research, admittedly) if Hoover took exception to an entire generation of English people referring to every vacuum cleaner as a Hoover...

lord_blackfang wrote:Legally, Lone Wolf is in the clear, but we all know the major selling point of their product is the ability to illegally share intellectual property.

That's never been the main selling point, since people have always been aware that you still need a copy of the codex to use it properly, and that the datafiles are frequently wrong.

The main selling point to pretty much everyone I've ever talked to about Army Builder has always been simply that it makes designing a list easier.

lord_blackfang wrote:

filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

I'm almost certain PP's overreaction was done on purpose and is delightfully spiteful.

yes delightful. though personally i know it wouldnt stand up in court and would tell LWD to shove it were the sun dont shine, its their own fault if they're going to use a generic name for their software...

also technically if its a trademark then its : Army Builder(TM) not army builder and im pretty sure noone says Army Builder(TM) as a general term.

This all boils down to the fact that PP was planning on having its own army calculator and data organizing system that was being referred to as Army Builder. Given that LW is pretty much a single product company they can't really afford to allow someone to walk off with their products name. LW is attempting to prevent ambiguity between the two systems, that is their right.

I'm usually on the other side of these discussion since I firmly believe that consumers should have more rights than they've been led to believe they do. In this instance it is a company utilizing copyright exactly as it was intended.

aka_mythos wrote:I'm usually on the other side of these discussion since I firmly believe that consumers should have more rights than they've been led to believe they do. In this instance it is a company utilizing copyright exactly as it was intended.

It's one thing to tell PP that they can't have use a trademarked name for another, similar product.

It's something else entirely to demand that PP censor their customer's online discussions because they're using the word wrong.

This all seems very silly to me. Then again, I come from a region where every type of soda imaginable is called a coke , regardless of brand.

Le Grognard wrote:I have a free Army Builder (TM) that I use: book, paper, pencil, calculator.

Rated G wrote:I made an army builder with excel.

Careful, or else you're going to get a C&D sent to Microsoft, Texas Instruments, and Mead.

The purpose of a trademark is to identify a specific product or brand.

Trademarks are not copyright terms unless they are made up words like Sony.

The owner of a trademark has to defend it by suppressing incorrect use or he loses the trademark. When that happens, anyone can make and sell a product or brand with the same name.

That isn't really a good situation for anyone, as it allows any crappy product to be marketed as the real thing.

Imagine the chaos if every computer company in the world was able to change their name to Apple, or if all soft drinks were packed in cans marked Coke.

derek wrote:

Le Grognard wrote:I have a free Army Builder (TM) that I use: book, paper, pencil, calculator.

Rated G wrote:I made an army builder with excel.

Careful, or else you're going to get a C&D sent to Microsoft, Texas Instruments, and Mead.

I hate to spoil a good joke, but a reference to MEAD would only work if Le Grognard
had said that he uses a five star, or whatever MEAD is calling their heavy duty notebooks
these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine the chaos if every computer company in the world was able to change their name to Apple, or if all soft drinks were packed in cans marked Coke.

Or if just any random video company labeled their DVDs with the name Wicked
or Digital Playground.

Wait, what?

Saldiven wrote:Actually, EULA's stand up in court all the time. If you chose to click the "ok" button when you haven't read the EULA, it's just like signing loan documents without reading them. (Electronic "signatures" have held up in court, too.)

While no court has rendered a decision in regard to ALL such "click here" type EUL Agreements, there have been many that have, in fact, held up in court. One of the precedents stated that, since the buyer had to "agree" to the EULA before installation of the software was complete, then it was binding. I don't know if Army Builder requires EULA acceptance prior to installation or not.

Anyway, you can do a pretty quick internet search for the enforceability of EULAs. It depends on the nature of the specific EULA and the court that has heard it.

Actually I disagree. EULA's are an after the contract condition forced upon the rightful purchaser after they have committed themselves to using the product by purchasing it.

You don't sign the EULA by pressing Ok before purchase thus you are coerced. Agree or you cannot use what you have paid for. Contracts under coercion are not binding, and installation EULA notices are clearly post sale and thus coerced. Companies can bypass this if the software that has a pre-purchase disclaimer (on the box) saying EULA must be agreed upon before using this product, the vast majority do not, and assumption is no defence.

Kilkrazy wrote:The owner of a trademark has to defend it by suppressing incorrect use or he loses the trademark.

So how do they do that? If I call my cheap mp3 player an iPod when talking to my friend on the bus, can Apple sue the bus company? Because that's exactly what is going on here.

Kilkrazy wrote:Imagine the chaos if every computer company in the world was able to change their name to Apple, or if all soft drinks were packed in cans marked Coke.

And that certainly would be a problem. It's a bit different from trying to stop the punters from using names in a general way like that, though...

aka_mythos wrote:I read all my EULA every time I buy a game or software. Only idiots ignore it. Its a legally binding contract.

Kind of a harsh generalization innit?

Gornall wrote:2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

insaniak wrote:Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

Totally. How many people add "cotton swabs" to their grocery list rather than "Q-Tips"? There's other brands, but Q-Tips are the most widely sold. The problem for the owner of the trademark is that if it becomes generalized enough, they can lose their legal protection. Take Bayer's "aspirin" and Duncan's "yo-yos" for example. Even so, while their IP rights may have been lost, trademark generalization has only helped their sales.

The other problem is that an army builder builds armies. what is a coca-cola, nothing so the company can have the name.

Apple also works as a trademark unless you are discussing the fruit. But Army Builder, sure you can be Army Builder TM, but that doesn't stop anyone from having an army builder under a different name and refer to it as an army builder.

Thats the trouble with descriptive common nouns as Trademarks, the trademark has to be distinctive from common use of the product.

It would be like a company sellings 'Cars' TM, you can trademark 'Ka' which is what Ford did.

I ate an Apple today. The video card was kind of crunchy.

Woot, wonder how many people will stop using LW's software because they sent a C&D to PP.

GW does it to sites illegally using their name and imagery and people scream about it. LW does it to PP and I don't see pitchforks and torches being brought out.

The fickleness of nerddom.

Hi Guys,

Please point all weapons this way. I'm the unlucky guy who had to send Privateer Press the message at the top of this thread. Based on further emails with Brent Waldher on Friday, I was expecting to discuss this with him today instead of having PP take the drastic measures they have now begun (i.e. deleting posts and instituting word filters). Please note those drastic measures are *NOT* required, and I've left a message with PP to this effect.

I'm going to do my best to respond to various posts in this thread and explain the situation. Please note that I am *not* an attorney. I'm a software developer that also has to handle the business aspects of a small company.

Before I go any further, though, please understand that we don't make the rules for how trademarks need to be enforced. The lawmakers and court system have set forth those rules, and we must simply abide by them or risk losing our trademark. That is what we are doing here, and it's not something we have a choice in - unless we want to lose the trademark.

Did I want to send the notice to PP? Absolutely not. Did I have a choice in the matter. Again, no.

Consider the following...

Imagine that iBodger, which I believe many of you use and value highly, was actually a piece of commercial software that was being sold for $5 in the iPhone app store. Imagine that the author relies on its sales to give him the financial flexibility to make updates, improvements, and other changes to the application, improving the experience of all its users. The author also trademarks the name to protect it.

Fast forward a few years. iBodger is now really popular, and its name becomes widely used to generically refer to a force creation tool. People begin using it in phrases like "I need to find a good bodger for my new Cygnar warjacks" or "Can anyone recommend a good iBodger for my Android phone?".

At first, the developer is happy with all this, because it means people really like his product. But then, someone (maybe another fan, maybe a game company developing commercial software) releases their new product for the Apple iPad, called something like "Tabletop iBodger Mk2".

Because the names are confusingly similar, people assume that the new app is from the same developer as the old one. They start posting questions about the new app on the "real" iBodger forums. People hearing about the old iBodger from their friends find the new app, and buy it instead. Many of them find the new app when they search for "iBodger" on Google.

The developer of the real iBodger is now worried. He has a trademark on the word "iBodger", so he tries to make the new program change their name. However, because people have been using the terms "bodger" and "iBodger" as generic equivalents to "force creation tool", without him trying to stop them, his attorney tells him that his case will be very expensive and unlikely to succeed. The term "iBodger" has become genericized, and his trademark is gone.

Sales of the real iBodger go down because of confusion between the two products. The original developer can no longer afford to support iBodger as well as he used to. The new company has effectively stolen the years of hard work he put in and used it to sell their own product.

This is what we're trying to avoid. If we ignore people using the our trademarks incorrectly, we run the risk of losing those trademarks and having them appropriated by other entities. If those entities can put more money behind publicity and marketing than we can, then they can effectively steal all of our hard work.

We're a company with employees. All those employees rely on the Army Builder product for a meaningful chunk of their income (along with our other products). If we do not police our trademarks, we run a high risk that they will be lost, at which point our business will be damaged and our jobs put in jeopardy. We simply cannot take that risk in good conscience.

Thanks for reading. Please let me know (either here, or by private email at rob@wolflair.com) if you have any questions or comments.

Also, thank you to the handful of posters who understand why we're doing this and have been trying to clarify it for everyone else. We appreciate your support.

-Rob

Fateweaver wrote:Woot, wonder how many people will stop using LW's software because they sent a C&D to PP.

GW does it to sites illegally using their name and imagery and people scream about it. LW does it to PP and I don't see pitchforks and torches being brought out.

The fickleness of nerddom.

Apples and oranges. In the PP case,its lone wolf sending the C&D letter to PP for folks on their forums using the term "army builder". Not PP itself. Further, it was handled well by PP, tehir response was pretty classic. So its over.

Where as the C&D letters from GW had no recourse.

Lone Wolf bit one of the hands that feed it, bad move on Lone Wolf's part.

I feel a Forward Kommander army creator link coming on.

Forward Kommander's blog has an entry regarding the C&D.

carmachu wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Woot, wonder how many people will stop using LW's software because they sent a C&D to PP.

GW does it to sites illegally using their name and imagery and people scream about it. LW does it to PP and I don't see pitchforks and torches being brought out.

The fickleness of nerddom.

Apples and oranges. In the PP case,its lone wolf sending the C&D letter to PP for folks on their forums using the term "army builder". Not PP itself. Further, it was handled well by PP, tehir response was pretty classic. So its over.

Where as the C&D letters from GW had no recourse.

Calling yourself the "official Blood Bowl headquarters", while being an unofficial site.

You're right, there's no reason whatsoever for GW to have done what they did!

Fateweaver wrote:LW does it to PP and I don't see pitchforks and torches being brought out.

Hey, I'm doing my best, buy I'm just one guy.
Well, there's really quite a lot of angry people on PP forums, and we're not taking LWD's crappy excuses.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:LW does it to PP and I don't see pitchforks and torches being brought out.

Hey, I'm doing my best, buy I'm just one guy.
Well, there's really quite a lot of angry people on PP forums, and we're not taking LWD's crappy excuses.

There's ALWAYS angry people on PP forums.

Fateweaver wrote:Woot, wonder how many people will stop using LW's software because they sent a C&D to PP.

Quite the opposite here. I'm now far less likely to pick up a PP game in the future because of their childish reaction.

Good on LWD for protecting their trademarks.

Kanluwen wrote:
Calling yourself the "official Blood Bowl headquarters", while being an unofficial site.

You're right, there's no reason whatsoever for GW to have done what they did!

Except of course you left out the part that A) GW pretty much abandoned blood bowl and support for years, almost a decade that the site was using. Further GW left updating the rules for BB to what, the commitee?

So yeah, GW pretty much played a hand it it themselves. They abscounded from the game for years, the sites been up for a decade. Why didnt they in year 1, 2, 3 while it was up have it changed then?

Apples and oranges, as I said.

Bottom line: Lone Wolf had a programmer send out a badly proof-read document (it had typos and used Wikipedia as a legal reference) posing as a C&D letter.

In the letter LWD stated tha PP had to police people from using the phrase "army builder" in a generic sense in conversation on its forums because if they did not they would be facilitating an IP infringement . PP was not itself using the term "army builder" in any official capacity iself.

The letter also amusingly/sadly made a badly veiled threat that if PP did not do this that something bad might happen to their forums.

Not to mention the irony of it all: LWD are hypocrits.

They have made profits for years off of other people's IP. They make a program that they 100% know is used by the vast majority of users to swap and share the IP of other companies. Of course they have cleverly positioned themselves so that they can deny all culpability legally because it is the "users" that are doing the no no.

Whatever...

LWD knows exactly what people are doing with their product and have no credability as a result: They produce a product that facilitates the unauthorized reproduction of and circulation of other companies IP.

They profit from the fact that their product allows people to circulate data that they should be buying fro the rightful owners.

Yes they may hav covered their asses legally, but the are still facilitating a crime by producing their product, and laughing all the way to the bank...

This is well known however.

what is astonishing is that they have the nerve to talk down to customers claiming they need to be "educated". A little more respect and a little less "holier than thou" would have gone a long way.

Congrats LWD you are succeeding in your misssion to decrease the sale/use of your product...

Absconding from supporting the game doesn't give the site any form of recognizable 'right' to call themselves "the official Blood Bowl headquarters".

They're still unofficial, since they are a fan site rather than the actual creators.

Oh, and it's still a pretty obvious fact that the C&Ds were the direct result of the release of the Blood Bowl game.

CT GAMER wrote:Bottom line: Lone Wolf had a programmer send out a badly proof-read document (it had typos and used Wikipedia as a legal reference) posing as a C&D letter.

Not to split hairs, but that wasn't the C&D letter. It was just the email explaining it. You can read the actual C&D at ForwardKommander's website.

Gornall wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Bottom line: Lone Wolf had a programmer send out a badly proof-read document (it had typos and used Wikipedia as a legal reference) posing as a C&D letter.

Not to split hairs, but that wasn't the C&D letter. It was just the email explaining it. You can read the actual C&D at ForwardKommander's website.

I read the actual letter. PP posted it. It had typos and referenced wikipedia .

It was a big pile of steaming fail...

Kanluwen wrote:Absconding from supporting the game doesn't give the site any form of recognizable 'right' to call themselves "the official Blood Bowl headquarters".

They're still unofficial, since they are a fan site rather than the actual creators.

Oh, and it's still a pretty obvious fact that the C&Ds were the direct result of the release of the Blood Bowl game.

Well yeah. Now that GW had money on the line via a video game, of course they paid attention.

The point is the difference bewteen the C&D letter from GW and the C&D letter from Lone wolf were vastly different.


Yes they were unoffical, but they also had GW's unoffical blessing, since they have been around for a decade. Only when a video game came about did they change their mind.

The WERE the unoffical Blood bowl headquarters. There isnt another resource around really, not even GW itself when it supported specialist games, was.

carmachu wrote:


Yes they were unoffical, but they also had GW's unoffical blessing, since they have been around for a decade.

Ignorance does not equal approval, even if it goes on for a decade.

CT GAMER wrote:I read the actual letter. PP posted it. It had typos and referenced wikipedia .

It was a big pile of steaming fail...

http://www.forwardkommander.com/trademark.pdf

This?

Bunker wrote:

Ignorance does not equal approval, even if it goes on for a decade.

Oh really? If it was such a violation why didnt the C&D letter go out in 2001?

I wonder if we can have any one else throwing their toys over this?

LWD threw some toys, the Privateer threw some toys, now the forum dregs are throwing their toys.

Wonderful.

Gornall wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:I read the actual letter. PP posted it. It had typos and referenced wikipedia .

It was a big pile of steaming fail...

http://www.forwardkommander.com/trademark.pdf

This?

No, I'm discussing the C&D email that LWD sent to Privateer Press stating that if Privateer Press didn't stop people from saying "army builder" in their conversations that something bad might happen to their forum...

It was full of typos and referenced wikipedia. it was apparently from the president of LWD. I don't know if it is more hillarious or sad really...

Ah. The email with the actual legal C&D Letter attached. I thought you were referring to the actual letter.

Howlingmoon wrote:I wonder if we can have any one else throwing their toys over this?

LWD threw some toys, the Privateer threw some toys, now the forum dregs are throwing their toys.

Wonderful.

We can all only aspire to one day be as above the fray as you oh enlightened one...

carmachu wrote:

Bunker wrote:

Ignorance does not equal approval, even if it goes on for a decade.

Oh really? If it was such a violation why didnt the C&D letter go out in 2001?

Why does the date that the C and D letter go out make it any less of an infringement of GW's IP?

carmachu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Absconding from supporting the game doesn't give the site any form of recognizable 'right' to call themselves "the official Blood Bowl headquarters".

They're still unofficial, since they are a fan site rather than the actual creators.

Oh, and it's still a pretty obvious fact that the C&Ds were the direct result of the release of the Blood Bowl game.

Well yeah. Now that GW had money on the line via a video game, of course they paid attention.

The point is the difference bewteen the C&D letter from GW and the C&D letter from Lone wolf were vastly different.


Yes they were unoffical, but they also had GW's unoffical blessing, since they have been around for a decade. Only when a video game came about did they change their mind.

The WERE the unoffical Blood bowl headquarters. There isnt another resource around really, not even GW itself when it supported specialist games, was.

You're right. They were the "unofficial" Blood Bowl Headquarters.

That's the keyword right there.
Even if they WERE the only people supporting the game, it still does not mean that GW has surrendered the rights that they owned for Blood Bowl.

Kanluwen wrote:
You're right. They were the "unofficial" Blood Bowl Headquarters.

That's the keyword right there.
Even if they WERE the only people supporting the game, it still does not mean that GW has surrendered the rights that they owned for Blood Bowl.

Never said they surrender, but they were the folks that supported the game. And given tact approval. You'll never convince me otherwise after almost a decade of being around. And most liekly having influence on LB4, LB5 and LB6.

GW knew. But choose not to deal with it for almost a decade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bunker wrote:

Why does the date that the C and D letter go out make it any less of an infringement of GW's IP?

Because it was going on for almost a decade. And that GW KNEW about it for that long. And choose not to deal with it when it started. And same said folks, if I recall right, had influence on variety of editions of BB.

GW knew and looked the other way when it was convient for them.

They looked the other way until the place began marketing itself as "the official Blood Bowl Headquarters" when there was a Blood Bowl video game on the horizons, and FFG began going through backlogs of GW/Citadel games.

I love Army Builder, and will continue to use their product.

HOWEVER, they were way outta line on this one! They have a symbiotic relationship with game makers... so they shouldn't be using these heavy-handed tactics, when the same could easily be done in reverse. They should be helping each other, not demanding compliance!

They're not doing anything to hurt the game makers.

They're asking for the game makers to NOT call their "official" army builder programs Army Builder.

It makes perfect sense. Coke doesn't call their stuff Pepsi to make better sales or build off the brand name.

I believe PP could simply rename it ending all of the trouble as the software by Lone Wolf is very similar in function and a registered trade mark it would stand in court imo. PP would save a lot of trouble that way.

Why do that when you can whine and make it seem like you're the victim of some kind of evil corporate scheme?!

PP's not in any trouble- now any reference to Army Builder on their forums simply becomes "iBodger" (which I gather is their free program for iphones to build armies for their game).

Simple. Elegant. Over!

And once again, I have purchsed Army Builder (twice) from Lone Wolf Development, and will continue to use their products. I love them!

But they were way out of line here. And from a public relations perspective, this was a major blunder- as evidenced by the response on PP's forums (and echoed here).

People just slip and call things army builder out of habit now.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Army_List_Building_Software

I almost called the article army builder programs, but went with list builder instead. However, I
can never remember that name and I always search for army builder.

Seems advantageous to them, unless maybe they were losing out recently. The proliferation
of the words army builder would naturally lead to their site and product. I don't think Warmachine
is a problem market for them because you don't really need a list builder too often in MK2.
Clearing lists for my recent event was a snap even when I had to check the physical cards of
an army I didn't know.

Removed, instead I will put CT Gamer on ignore.

Awesome. The ignore function works.

This thread is a classic case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing but a lack of knowledge and no common sense is worse."

I believe someone earlier in the thread pointed out the actual reality of what is happening here has gone straight over the masses heads. I tend to agree.

Kanluwen and Poipo32 have you even read the letter from LWD to PP?!? You both seem ignorant of the facts.

Privateer Press DOES NOt have a list building progam they refer to as "army builder" etc. There is no such product that they could change the name of.

LWD's letter to PP stated that they had been spying on the PP foums for a long time and that forumites on the PP forums are saying things like "Hey what army builder program do you use?" or "hey is ibodger a good army builder?" etc. ,etc.

LWD's beef was that people saying such things on PP' forums was a breach of their IP and that PP was in violation for allowing people to use such phrases and then threatened that if PP did not police every message on their forum and prevent people from using the term "army builder" in a generic sense in conversation that something bad might happen to their forum (thinly veiled threat of legal action against their forum?). They also in very derogatory language infered that the PP forumites needed to be "educated" about the use of the term "army builder" so they could b taught that using that sequence of words (even in a generic sense) is an IP violation.

So to clarify LWD threatened legal action on PP if it didnt prevent people from using the words "army" and "builder" in sequence when talking about any form of list creation tool.

Just to beclear since you both seem confused...

BTw, I will still continue to use AB. It is a relative good program and saves me having to do it myself. I see absolutely nothing wrong with what they have done.

fullheadofhair wrote:

A little bit of knowledge is often dangerous but a total lack of it and no common sense is even worse.

You are correct and need to apply this to your own participation in this thread.


The letter( complete with typos and wikipedia references despite being presented as an offical buisness document discussing legal matters) was written by LWD president "Rob" who stated on the PP forums himself (he joined this afternoon) that he "ran it by" his crack legal team before shooting it off in email form to the PP foum administrator...

Under pressure from those on the PP forums he backtracked and tried to say that any erroneous legal assertions he might have made have to be excused because he is just a "programmer" and not a lawyer, and that his legal counsel was out of the office for the day (east coast office?) so he couldnt verify anything with them regarding his legal threats. That didnt stop him from posting away however...

He joined the PP forum this afternoon and proceeded to argue with PP forumites and basically talked in circles and made an ass of himself...

He did manage to alienate a bunch of customers so i guess it was worth it...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

fullheadofhair wrote:Removed, instead I will put CT Gamer on ignore.

I accept your admission of lack of facts.

The letter written to PP was by Rob Bowes of Lone Wolf Development. He is not an attorney he is a software developer by trade.

This is taken from the PP forums:

lonewolfdevel wrote:Hi Guys,

Please point all weapons this way. I'm the unlucky guy who had to send Privateer Press the message at the top of this thread. Based on further emails with Brent Waldher on Friday, I was expecting to discuss this with him today instead of having PP take the drastic measures they have now begun (i.e. deleting posts and instituting word filters). Please note those drastic measures are *NOT* required, and I've left a message with PP to this effect.

I'm going to do my best to respond to various posts in this thread and explain the situation. Please note that I am *not* an attorney. I'm a software developer that also has to handle the business aspects of a small company.

http://www.privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?t=9026&page=5


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fullheadofhair wrote:I believe someone earlier in the thread pointed out the actual reality of what is happening here has gone straight over the masses heads. I tend to agree.

Fools seldom differ.

George Spiggott wrote:

http://www.privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?t=9026&page=5

FYI: The thread's content has been removed and replaced by a note from the mods.

George Spiggott wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

fullheadofhair wrote:I believe someone earlier in the thread pointed out the actual reality of what is happening here has gone straight over the masses heads. I tend to agree.

Fools seldom differ.

And lemmings follow each other of a cliff in great numbers - no different to nerd rage on forums.

Really ... so LWD should just allow anyone to use their trademark - as in we have an army builder for X product. No, of course not. Not matter how much people whine LWD own the rights to "Army Builder". But, heck, why let a few facts get in the way of a good torching.

And as for PP being "the good guy" .....

The original C&D was sent by an attorny. The follow up was by Rob as you correctly point out. If people actually to a minute out of their self-righteous jumping up and down and read what was happening they might actually learn something about real life. Like follow some rules.

The email sent to PP was sent directly to them from Rob (as he stated himself on the PP forums) after he supposedly consulted with his lawyers.

This is a second and different correspondence from that sent to Forward Kommander.

The email to PP specificaly addressed the sillyness I detail above.

Very similar to the legal battles that Xerox went through. Xerox is a company. The term "xerox" became common terminology for what is created...

Likewise LWD owns "Army Builder" (capitalized name of a specific product) but that doesn t mean that you can't have apps/programs that are "army builders" (not capitalized)...

Rob was arguing on the PP forums that people saying thinsg like " What army builder program do you prefer" is an IP violation,etc. and was threatening to take action against PP if they allowed people to use such phrases not in reference to LWD 's product...

Madness...

lone wolf's explanation is crap. comparing the terms "army builder" and "ibodger" is like comparing apples and oranges. one is a phrase that exists in common english that refers to the process EVERYONE uses in wargames when... wait for it.. building their armies! ibodger is a completely made up term not in use in common english. i could understand them going after someone who used the words together (especially with capital first letters) in the title of a competing program but not in the normal english use of the two words. maybe i should write up a quick C++ program with my old freshman year college course books that allows you to fight with simple units... and i'll call it "War Game". that way, when someone uses the words war and game next to each other, i can send a "do it yourself" C&D letter!

warboss wrote:lone wolf's explanation is crap. comparing the terms "army builder" and "ibodger" is like comparing apples and oranges. one is a phrase that IS TRADEMARKED BY LWD ibodger is a completely made up term not in use in common english. i could understand them going after someone who used the words together (especially with capital first letters) in the title of a competing program but not in the normal english use of the two words. maybe i should write up a quick C++ program with my old freshman year college course books that allows you to fight with simple units... and i'll call it "War Game". that way, when someone uses the words war and game next to each other, i can send a "do it yourself" C&D letter!

There, fixed your typo for you.

Aduro wrote:Wow, that letter makes PP kind of look like asshats over the whole thing.

Quoted for truth.

But Privateer Press has always come off like asshats... I'm pretty sure its a company directive: "Whenever possible, if a Privateer Press employee has a choice between civility and severe, unadalterated douchebaggery, said employee is encouraged and obligated to choose douchebaggery."

I'm pretty sure that's in their employee handbook somewhere.

I can't remember the exact quote, but in one of their first books they said something along the lines of "if you aren't playing with metal models, then you're a big gaming pussy." I had a huge laugh when they were forced to convert to plastic...

"Army builder" most likely would not hold up if challenged.

Just like you couldn't get the sole rights to "frying pan" or "cell Phone", or "soft drink" and just like Xerox didn't hold up.

A number of IP lawyers have already commented on this in disussions on other forums.

It's irrelevant however, becaue PP gave them what they wanted and filtered said name right out of existance on their forums...

fullheadofhair wrote:And lemmings follow each other of a cliff in great numbers...

I'm afraid this is also untrue.

fullheadofhair wrote:Really ... so LWD should just allow anyone to use their trademark - as in we have an army builder for X product. No, of course not. Not matter how much people whine LWD own the rights to "Army Builder". But, heck, why let a few facts get in the way of a good torching.

And as for PP being "the good guy" .....

The original C&D was sent by an attorny. The follow up was by Rob as you correctly point out. If people actually to a minute out of their self-righteous jumping up and down and read what was happening they might actually learn something about real life. Like follow some rules.

There is no original C&D sent to PP only the email sent by Rob. Should LWD let anyone use their Trademark? No. Should they have used some social skills and started with a softer approach? Definitely. LWD made a massive miscalculation here that will hurt them more than it hurts PP, if it hurts PP at all.

You need to check your facts and wind your neck in.

CT GAMER wrote:"Army builder" most likely would not hold up if challenged.

Just like you couldn't get the sole rights to "frying pan" or "cell Phone", or "soft drink" and just like Xerox didn't hold up.

A number of IP lawyers have already commented on this in disussions on other forums.

It's irrelevant however, becaue PP gave them what they wanted and filtered said name right out of existance on their forums...

What are you talking about?

"Army Builder" WOULD hold up, as it refers to a specific program used for a specific purpose.

If it were "Army List Management Tool", then it wouldn't have any kind of grounds whatsoever.

Kanluwen wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:"Army builder" most likely would not hold up if challenged.

Just like you couldn't get the sole rights to "frying pan" or "cell Phone", or "soft drink" and just like Xerox didn't hold up.

A number of IP lawyers have already commented on this in disussions on other forums.

It's irrelevant however, becaue PP gave them what they wanted and filtered said name right out of existance on their forums...

What are you talking about?

"Army Builder" WOULD hold up, as it refers to a specific program used for a specific purpose.

If it were "Army List Management Tool", then it wouldn't have any kind of grounds whatsoever.

Try to follow along:

Army Builder (capitalized) might hold up (though two IP lawyers who commented thought it weak at best) if someone else tried to make an app/file that did a similar thing and used the term. But that isn't evnt he issue that was being argued per se.

Rob/LWD tried to make th arguement that if someone says " I'm not sure what army builder program is the best: ibodger or Foward Kommander" that the statement ITSELF is somehow a Copyright violaton and that PP is also in violation because they allowed someone to post this phrase... is absolute insanity., and that is what Rob tried to argue and threaten PP over.

many programs help you "build armies" in the generic sense of the phrase. This generic phrasing used in comversation can't be copyrighted.

It also occures to me that the term "Army Builder" was never used before Army Builder (TM) came to be. Ever.

I've been gaming for a rediculous amount of time, and racking my brains I can't think of a single time a person I gamed with used the term "army Builder" before LWD's software hit the market.

When LWD's product did hit the market, it took off like wildfire. Even with it's rediculous amount of errors, it not only became the accepted method of army list, it became the expected form of army list. Many a nerdfight I have seen begun over an illegal move/action/whatever because someone was using Army Builder (TM) instead of his codex.

In the past decade or so, the term - which was coined by LWD - has become common place.

To say that LWD borrowed a common place term is either a blatant lie from someone with an axe to grind or a forgivable offense born in ignorance. Period.

DeathGod wrote:It also occures to me that the term "Army Builder" was never used before Army Builder (TM) came to be. Ever.

I've been gaming for a rediculous amount of time, and racking my brains I can't think of a single time a person I gamed with used the term "army Builder" before LWD's software hit the market.

When LWD's product did hit the market, it took off like wildfire. Even with it's rediculous amount of errors, it not only became the accepted method of army list, it became the expected form of army list. Many a nerdfight I have seen begun over an illegal move/action/whatever because someone was using Army Builder (TM) instead of his codex.

In the past decade or so, the term - which was coined by LWD - has become common place.

To say that LWD borrowed a common place term is either a blatant lie from someone with an axe to grind or a forgivable offense born in ignorance. Period.

thats the whole point. Xerox (which is far less generic of a word/term) lost it's own fight to copyright what the word came to stand for. We all use the term xerox today to refer to a specific thng (a copy) even though many machines that are not made by Xerox make them...

LWD development makes "ArmyBuilder"(TM). Th Xerox of army builder (lower case) software

George Spiggott wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:And lemmings follow each other of a cliff in great numbers...

I'm afraid this is also untrue.

fullheadofhair wrote:Really ... so LWD should just allow anyone to use their trademark - as in we have an army builder for X product. No, of course not. Not matter how much people whine LWD own the rights to "Army Builder". But, heck, why let a few facts get in the way of a good torching.

And as for PP being "the good guy" .....

The original C&D was sent by an attorny. The follow up was by Rob as you correctly point out. If people actually to a minute out of their self-righteous jumping up and down and read what was happening they might actually learn something about real life. Like follow some rules.

There is no original C&D sent to PP only the email sent by Rob. Should LWD let anyone use their Trademark? No. Should they have used some social skills and started with a softer approach? Definitely. LWD made a massive miscalculation here that will hurt them more than it hurts PP, if it hurts PP at all.

You need to check your facts and wind your neck in.

Dude, some one has already posted the actual C&D (link in pg 3) in this forum as well as the email letter (pg 1 of thread).

I am pretty sure the chances that PP haven't seen a C&D is particularly slim.

Also, while we are at it - I love how you call me a fool and then basically agree with me that LWD was well within their rights to do so. Birds of a feather?

so bugger off.

but you are right, as far as I am concerned it won't hurt PP much because I think they are talentless douches who don't behave as well as people like to believe.

CT GAMER wrote:

DeathGod wrote:It also occures to me that the term "Army Builder" was never used before Army Builder (TM) came to be. Ever.

I've been gaming for a rediculous amount of time, and racking my brains I can't think of a single time a person I gamed with used the term "army Builder" before LWD's software hit the market.

When LWD's product did hit the market, it took off like wildfire. Even with it's rediculous amount of errors, it not only became the accepted method of army list, it became the expected form of army list. Many a nerdfight I have seen begun over an illegal move/action/whatever because someone was using Army Builder (TM) instead of his codex.

In the past decade or so, the term - which was coined by LWD - has become common place.

To say that LWD borrowed a common place term is either a blatant lie from someone with an axe to grind or a forgivable offense born in ignorance. Period.

thats the whole point. Xerox (which is far less generic of a word/term) lost it's own fight to copyright what the word came to stand for. We all use the term xerox today to refer to a specific thng (a copy) even though many machines that are not made by Xerox make them...

And the ignorance continues... Xerox lost that copyright fight because they waited for more than three decades (I think, it's too late for me to go researching dates at the moment) to protect their TM.

Your example, in fact, SUPPORTS LWD's course of action, because avoiding a repeat of Xerox's problem is the entire point of the C&D...

DeathGod wrote:It also occures to me that the term "Army Builder" was never used before Army Builder (TM) came to be. Ever.

I've been gaming for a rediculous amount of time, and racking my brains I can't think of a single time a person I gamed with used the term "army Builder" before LWD's software hit the market.

When LWD's product did hit the market, it took off like wildfire. Even with it's rediculous amount of errors, it not only became the accepted method of army list, it became the expected form of army list. Many a nerdfight I have seen begun over an illegal move/action/whatever because someone was using Army Builder (TM) instead of his codex.

In the past decade or so, the term - which was coined by LWD - has become common place.

To say that LWD borrowed a common place term is either a blatant lie from someone with an axe to grind or a forgivable offense born in ignorance. Period.

I would have to agree. Having been gaming for 17+ years it was never army building. It was "list writing" or "I need to write a list first". Now, if I play its "just need to build an army first"

DeathGod wrote:In the past decade or so, the term - which was coined by LWD - has become common place.

To say that LWD borrowed a common place term is either a blatant lie from someone with an axe to grind or a forgivable offense born in ignorance. Period.

Who cares? Non of the websites contacted by LWD have chosen to fight the C&D.

Whether 'Army Builder' is a general phrase or not a number of websites are adding 'Army Builder' to their word filters as the only practical way of enforcing the terms of the C&D.

George Spiggott wrote:

DeathGod wrote:In the past decade or so, the term - which was coined by LWD - has become common place.

To say that LWD borrowed a common place term is either a blatant lie from someone with an axe to grind or a forgivable offense born in ignorance. Period.

Who cares? Non of the websites contacted by LWD have chosen to fight the C&D.

Whether 'Army Builder' is a general phrase or not a number of websites are adding 'Army Builder' to their word filters as the only practical way of enforcing the terms of the C&D.

So what actually is you point? Care to make it in simple phrases coz you seem to be rolling all over the place.

DeathGod wrote:
And the ignorance continues... Xerox lost that copyright fight because they waited for more than three decades (I think, it's too late for me to go researching dates at the moment) to protect their TM.

Your example, in fact, SUPPORTS LWD's course of action, because avoiding a repeat of Xerox's problem is the entire point of the C&D...

People persisted in calling copies Xeroxes regardless of what machine made them. Was xerox gonna sue every perosn that said "I just made a xerox of your report"?

That is what Rob was calling PP to do: to stop ever person on their forum from using the term "army builder' (not capitlized) in genral conversation or reference to any app that was not"Army Builder". We aren't talking about the actual naming of a product, we are talking about using a term that has come into common use in gaming culture: "army builder" (not capitalized). Rob threatend to take legal action against PP if it didnt prevent it's forum uers fro saying things like "what army builder app is your favorite".

This had nothing to do with actual Ip infringement by a competing product.

fullheadofhair wrote:Dude, some one has already posted the actual C&D (link in pg 3) in this forum as well as the email letter (pg 1 of thread).

That's a C&D to Forward Kommander. Feel free to link to it if I'm in error here.

Lonewolfdevel wrote:Perhaps we should have sent the formal letter from the attorneys. We chose not to...
__________________
Rob Bowes, Lone Wolf Development
http://www.wolflair.com

I have to say that I really dislike PPs reaction to this.

It was all fine to slag LWD in their absence. But as soon as the owner/developer Rob attempted to defend his actions, the thread was deleted.

PP changed policy to disallow other businesses from posting on their boards.

Oh and the snipes about obvious typos should apply to PP as well.

The new policy from the PP boards.

"Privateer Press does not allow manufacturers who do on have an official affiliation with Privateer to represent their products or services in Privateer Press forums. Furthermore, the Privateer Press forums are for the discussion of Privateer Products and subjects relevant to our products, services, and events. We greatly appreciate the support of our players but have chosen to remove the ensuing discussion as it does not pertain to the aforementioned subjects in a way that we feel is relevant. Please take note of this policy change, which we will add to our official forum rules after removing this sticky in 30 days. Further discussion on this topic will be deleted. Thank you for your cooperation. "

skrulnik wrote:Oh and the snipes about obvious typos should apply to PP as well.

Because formal legal threats and posts on internet forums hold the same weight.

If only Rob had chosen to post on the forums that he emailed first. We wouldn't be at this position now.

1.) I think Lone Wolf was correct in their stance that US copyright law does not allow, but in fact demands, that they defend their mark or lose it. Hence, they had no choice. I think generally they handled the situation as well as they could have, even pointing out that they were legally required to do this.

2.) I think Lone Wolf probably exceeded the scope of their responsibility by requesting Privateer Press back filter messages and that was likely unreasonable.

3.) I think Privateer Press's response was childish and unprofessional.

4.) I doubt Lone Wolf's trademark of "Army Builder" could withstand a legal challenge, as it's too generic of a phrase, without a secondary meaning that is unambiguously linked to Lone Wolf.

Honestly I feel that PP posted the letter just to incite the fanbase.
It was unnecessary and a hostile act.

They are well aware of the reaction the GW notices caused and knew the likely reaction to posting it.
They chose to use it to enhance their "good guy" image vs GW. In my opinion of course.

Two companies made bad choices today.
One with a large fanbase of support.
Another with a product that has a limited user-base due to cost and competition.

The loss of Army Builder as a TM is a concern. They needed to address it.
The letter was not meant for public consumption. It was a communication between businesses.
Think about the business emails you may get at work. They are not always public friendly in tone because that is not their audience.

The internet brushfire it caused shows how ill-advised publishing it to the forums was.
A significant portion of forum posters love when something like this comes along and pounce on them.

skrulnik wrote:The loss of Army Builder as a TM is a concern. They needed to address it.
The letter was not meant for public consumption. It was a communication between businesses.
Think about the business emails you may get at work. They are not always public friendly in tone because that is not their audience.

The Army Builder Trademark is now safe, all websites contacted (at least four to my knowledge) have accepted the demands made.

That's never been my experience of business emails, certainly given the relationship between LWD and PP. Perhaps you do it differently in the US.

George Spiggott wrote: That's a C&D to Forward Kommander. Feel free to link to it if I'm in error here.

I would imagine they sent the same letter to both companies, but that's just me assuming. It's late here, but I can't recall there being anything special in the C&D letter that would make it unique to one company.

filbert wrote:However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

Hi guys. Since this event seems to have sparked all sorts of discussion, I'm checking into various forums and will attempt to clarify details that many of you might not be aware of. If you have questions about this stuff, please ask and I'll do my best to get you answers. Please be patient, though, since there's exactly one of me and I'm going to be spread rather thin as I try to do this in addition to everything else on my plate here at the office.

The first important detail is that this is a matter of *trademark*, which is *very* different from copyright. The rules are radically different for the two and have vastly different requirements associated with them.

To address the comment above, the term Army Builder was adopted back in 1998 when we first released the product. The term was trademarked shortly thereafter. There were a variety of terms used for the handful of game-specific, freeware tools at the time, and the term Army Builder was not in general use at the time. The success of Army Builder as a product, combined with the concise name, are what has made the term ubiquitous in the industry. It was *not* a matter of the term being well established and us just grabbing it - quite the opposite, in fact. It's actually 12 years of market prominence by the product that made the term so widely known, so the product itself created the need to actively police the term.

As for whether the trademark is valid, it was registered in the US a decade ago. So the US PTO granted it based on the term being deemed sufficiently distinct to allow for it. Since the trademark was granted, it fundamentally *is* valid. There is no question about that fact.

The problem that has ensued, and that led to us contacting PP about the issue, is a few Warmachine fans decided to call their own tools "Army Builder" and that numerous posters on their sites began using the term as a generic reference. Both of those are improper uses of the trademark, and, based on the rules associated with trademarks, we are *required* to police such uses.

The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

lonewolfdevel wrote:

filbert wrote:However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

Hi guys. Since this event seems to have sparked all sorts of discussion, I'm checking into various forums and will attempt to clarify details that many of you might not be aware of. If you have questions about this stuff, please ask and I'll do my best to get you answers. Please be patient, though, since there's exactly one of me and I'm going to be spread rather thin as I try to do this in addition to everything else on my plate here at the office.

The first important detail is that this is a matter of *trademark*, which is *very* different from copyright. The rules are radically different for the two and have vastly different requirements associated with them.

To address the comment above, the term Army Builder was adopted back in 1998 when we first released the product. The term was trademarked shortly thereafter. There were a variety of terms used for the handful of game-specific, freeware tools at the time, and the term Army Builder was not in general use at the time. The success of Army Builder as a product, combined with the concise name, are what has made the term ubiquitous in the industry. It was *not* a matter of the term being well established and us just grabbing it - quite the opposite, in fact. It's actually 12 years of market prominence by the product that made the term so widely known, so the product itself created the need to actively police the term.

As for whether the trademark is valid, it was registered in the US a decade ago. So the US PTO granted it based on the term being deemed sufficiently distinct to allow for it. Since the trademark was granted, it fundamentally *is* valid. There is no question about that fact.

The problem that has ensued, and that led to us contacting PP about the issue, is a few Warmachine fans decided to call their own tools "Army Builder" and that numerous posters on their sites began using the term as a generic reference. Both of those are improper uses of the trademark, and, based on the rules associated with trademarks, we are *required* to police such uses.

The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

Thanks for that. Some of us here do actually understand, and are supportive of your actions.

Gornall wrote:Yeah, AB could have chosen a less generic name for their product, but they do have a legal trademark for it and have to defend it or lose it (I think). Unless I'm mistaken, it's pretty cut and dry.

That's completely accurate. If you don't police a trademark, you risk losing. Simple as that. So we have no choice in the matter. Unlike most matters, ownership does *not* provide the option to selectively choose who gets told not to use the mark. We have to contact everyone that we become aware of. That really sucks when you know the folks are just fans trying to have fun playing their games.

Gornall wrote:EDIT: I was refering to the letter sent to ForwardKommander, not PP. Oops. The one to PP is significantly different, and is slightly more heavy-handed, as it's a bit much to expect that kind of control on a forum board. TBH, I think PP went overboard too, as something along the lines of a sticky and doing some copy-paste might have been enough. Dunno.

The way things work with IP is that, as far as I understand it, we have to go through the site owner. Most of this was set forth within the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The site owners have a safe harbor, provided they actively assist anyone who comes to them with an IP issue regarding users of the site. If the site owners refuse to cooperate, then they can become legally culpable.

Also, in this particular instance, things had become really bad in a span of months, and we truly needed PP to assist in the process to rein things in quickly. How they chose to react was extreme and unnecessary, but it was their option to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:You can use "Army Builder" when referring to the product itself, but you can't use "army builder" in a generic sense.

Exactly.

UltraPrime wrote:

lonewolfdevel wrote:

filbert wrote:However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

Hi guys. Since this event seems to have sparked all sorts of discussion, I'm checking into various forums and will attempt to clarify details that many of you might not be aware of. If you have questions about this stuff, please ask and I'll do my best to get you answers. Please be patient, though, since there's exactly one of me and I'm going to be spread rather thin as I try to do this in addition to everything else on my plate here at the office.

The first important detail is that this is a matter of *trademark*, which is *very* different from copyright. The rules are radically different for the two and have vastly different requirements associated with them.

To address the comment above, the term Army Builder was adopted back in 1998 when we first released the product. The term was trademarked shortly thereafter. There were a variety of terms used for the handful of game-specific, freeware tools at the time, and the term Army Builder was not in general use at the time. The success of Army Builder as a product, combined with the concise name, are what has made the term ubiquitous in the industry. It was *not* a matter of the term being well established and us just grabbing it - quite the opposite, in fact. It's actually 12 years of market prominence by the product that made the term so widely known, so the product itself created the need to actively police the term.

As for whether the trademark is valid, it was registered in the US a decade ago. So the US PTO granted it based on the term being deemed sufficiently distinct to allow for it. Since the trademark was granted, it fundamentally *is* valid. There is no question about that fact.

The problem that has ensued, and that led to us contacting PP about the issue, is a few Warmachine fans decided to call their own tools "Army Builder" and that numerous posters on their sites began using the term as a generic reference. Both of those are improper uses of the trademark, and, based on the rules associated with trademarks, we are *required* to police such uses.

The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

Thanks for that. Some of us here do actually understand, and are supportive of your actions.

x2

He quoted me so much that people will think I'm a LWD plant!

Gornall wrote:They specifically asked that all the references be removed/edited.

In any C&D situation that I'm aware of, the party issuing the C&D asks for the maximum. Then discussions ensue, and a compromise is reached, unless the recipient is doing something seriously egregious (like using your trademark in the name of their own product). Based on communications with PP on Friday, I thought we'd be doing that today (Monday). PP opted otherwise before any discussions were held.

lonewolfdevel wrote:

The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

Over the past six months various gaming fora have been discussing and critizing GW's cease and desist push. OBVIOUSLY this context would determine the reaction to your own C&D. When you issue a formal C&D why would you be surprised at any reaction from PP? Might it be possible that PP was just as surprised when it received the C&D? Perhaps you should have approached them informally first.

Gornall wrote:Basically, LWD is asking for two things:

1. All "incorrect" references to "army builders" be removed/edited.
2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

@AoE: I think they had 72 hours to contact them, not neccessarily fix everything.

Exactly. They contacted us within 24 hours (on Friday). They asked if everything needed to fixed within 72 hours and there were told explicitly "no". They were also told explicitly that the timetable was not important, provided we begin working something out that would serve well for the long-term. Based on that, I expected discussions on the next business day (Monday) - not the actions they chose.

Did they get the notice on Friday? If they did, they could have felt pressured by the 72 hour deadline over the weekend (potentially unable to contact you during that time) if they thought Monday was a hard and fast deadline.

EDIT: NINJAED!!

insaniak wrote:Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

The issue here is referred to as the "genericization" of a trademark. If a trademark becomes a generic term, then it can be lost. There is useful explanation of this on wikipedia. I've provided the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

In our case, there are numerous alternative terms that can be used in place of our trademark. And we need to ensure that everyone uses such terms in reference to other tools and the category of tools in genera. For example, "army creator", "roster construction tool", "points calculator", etc.

insaniak wrote:Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

Yes, the name becomes a synecdoche like kleenex or hoover.

lonewolfdevel wrote:

insaniak wrote:Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

The issue here is referred to as the "genericization" of a trademark. If a trademark becomes a generic term, then it can be lost. There is useful explanation of this on wikipedia. I've provided the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

In our case, there are numerous alternative terms that can be used in place of our trademark. And we need to ensure that everyone uses such terms in reference to other tools and the category of tools in genera. For example, "army creator", "roster construction tool", "points calculator", etc.

I appreciate the response but the link you posted refers to a manufacturer and particular product that has become synonymous in the public eye with all forms of that type. A good example of that would be Hoover - many people use Hoover as a generic name to refer to a vacuum cleaner purely because Hoover the company have become synonymous with vacuum cleaners. In this case, I believe you are trademarking a generic term - how can you argue that Army Builder can be otherwise? It's the same as me designing a piece of software to edit movies and calling it Movie Editor.

Fateweaver wrote:Woot, wonder how many people will stop using LW's software because they sent a C&D to PP.

GW does it to sites illegally using their name and imagery and people scream about it. LW does it to PP and I don't see pitchforks and torches being brought out.

The fickleness of nerddom.

I haven't experienced any of that fickleness. There has been quite a lot of vitriol over this issue. And yes, we've had a few folks email us that they will be abandoning our products because of it.

We're in a lose-lose situation. We either risk angering users who don't like us doing this or we risk losing the trademark upon which our most well-known product is based. We can potentially survive and/or recover from the former. Not the latter. Since there are a number of us who's mortgaged and rent payments depend on sales of our products, and since we like what we do, our only real option is to protect the trademark and keep our fingers crossed that the majority of folks out there understand what we're striving to do and support us.

filbert wrote:I appreciate the response but the link you posted refers to a manufacturer and particular product that has become synonymous in the public eye with all forms of that type. A good example of that would be Hoover - many people use Hoover as a generic name to refer to a vacuum cleaner purely because Hoover the company have become synonymous with vacuum cleaners. In this case, I believe you are trademarking a generic term - how can you argue that Army Builder can be otherwise? It's the same as me designing a piece of software to edit movies and calling it Movie Editor.

Take that up with the Trademark Office. Whether or not you think it's correct, the Trademark Office already gave LWD the trademark on "Army Builder", so it is now theirs, regardless of whether we feel it is too generic or not.

Gornall wrote:
Take that up with the Trademark Office. Whether or not you think it's correct, the Trademark Office already gave LWD the trademark on "Army Builder", so it is now theirs, regardless of whether we feel it is too generic or not.

I suppose the LWD guy will comment on it. Strange though - if you open up Army Builder and go to Help > About Army Builder and look at the splash screen, the small print says Army Builder is a registered trademark. The symbol next to the Army Builder is 'TM' however, which is an unregistered trademark.

EDIT: I don't mean to be pedantic, just trying to establish the grounds upon which LWD are defending this. Obviously, if it is a registered trademark then they are afforded all the protection under the sun assuming the trademark isn't lapsed. However, it's a bit different with unregistered trademarks, although there is a certain amount of protection under common law.

CT GAMER wrote:Bottom line: Lone Wolf had a programmer send out a badly proof-read document (it had typos and used Wikipedia as a legal reference) posing as a C&D letter.

I sent them a message on their forums. It was not a C&D letter. Had it been a C&D letter, it would have looked very much like the one received by the Freek Punt. That letter *was* sent by our attorneys and it left no option for discussion. In the message to PP, the goal was to work out something with them to educate the users, but I was told by our attorney to be firm, so I was.

Secondly, it did *not* use wikipedia as a "legal reference". Since it was directed at the PP forum administrators, who I assumed weren't lawyers, it pointed out the same article I referenced earlier as a layman's explanation of what trademark genericization is. I'm guessing most folks here on this forum weren't familiar with that concept, and since it was central to understanding the problem on the PP site, I figured it would be helpful.

CT GAMER wrote:They have made profits for years off of other people's IP. They make a program that they 100% know is used by the vast majority of users to swap and share the IP of other companies.

That's not true for the folks I've ever met that use our product. I've definitely heard claims of this from people on various forums, but never from anyone who I've considered credible. Over the years, I've asked numerous *retailers* about this issue. These are folks whose livelihood depends on selling the books and the figures, and I talk to hundreds of them every year at tradeshows. Every single one of them that I've talked to has emphatically stated that Army Builder helps them sell more army books and more figures. Why? Because it let's gamers play around with army lists they don't yet own, then get hooked on an idea and ultimately buy a new army. When they buy the new army, they get the book and hundreds of dollars of figures. When I have retailers unanimously tell me that Army Builder is a sales tool that helps them sell more books and minis, I have no trouble sleeping at night. I know that the companies whose products we support make *more* money due to our product.

I assume that your assertions are based on the local group you play with. So it appears that the crowd you game with is atypical from everyone I talk to around the nation.

UltraPrime wrote:

lonewolfdevel wrote:

filbert wrote:*snip*.

Thanks for that. Some of us here do actually understand, and are supportive of your actions.

Count me as one of them. You really don't have a choice.

Now, a mean person might suggest that Matt Wilson, given his artistic background, and his illustration style, and his work at Marvel, is well aware of the character of War Machine. Both are robotic in appearance, and the layman might be confused by Warmachine being some alternate time-line toys. Replace super science with super magic...

Given some of the Hordes sculpts, I'd even say that Rob "90% muscle" Leifield might have a few words to say as well...

Styrofoam is to polystyrene as Army Builder is to army list creation programs.

I think that LWD is shutting the barn door after the cow got out. I don't think of iBodger as a Lone Wolf Developement tool. I think of it as an army builder. LWD has a long way to go if they're thinking that they will be able to change that line of thought.

RiTides wrote:Page 5...

lonewolfdevel wrote:

Gornall wrote:They specifically asked that all the references be removed/edited.

In any C&D situation that I'm aware of, the party issuing the C&D asks for the maximum. Then discussions ensue, and a compromise is reached, unless the recipient is doing something seriously egregious (like using your trademark in the name of their own product). Based on communications with PP on Friday, I thought we'd be doing that today (Monday). PP opted otherwise before any discussions were held.

Best post I've read in this thread, RiTides!

As a customer of both Army Builder and Privateer Press, I wish this could've been handled better. I've read the both the e-mail and the CD letter and I have to say that the e-mail from LWD came off as condescending. Saying you're open for discussion while your official and unofficial correspondence demands the maximum action is disingenuous backpeddling IMHO. You got what you asked for. Will this change my patronage? Nope. Though I never used Army Builder for my Warmachine lists (Tabletop Commander, I thought, was a better program to use), I'll continue to use Army Builder as long as I play 40K or until a better 40K "army list builder" comes along. This is just a thought, but I think that maybe an opportunity was wasted for discussing a possible licensing deal in which PP provides the data files for the Army Builder program. Imagine being able to download new files for new models/stats when the books go live. That might've been a better avenue to explore.

Vladigar wrote:
As a customer of both Army Builder and Privateer Press, I wish this could've been handled better. I've read the both the e-mail and the CD letter and I have to say that the e-mail from LWD came off as condescending. Saying you're open for discussion while your official and unofficial correspondence demands the maximum action is disingenuous backpeddling IMHO. You got what you asked for. Will this change my patronage? Nope. Though I never used Army Builder for my Warmachine lists (Tabletop Commander, I thought, was a better program to use), I'll continue to use Army Builder as long as I play 40K or until a better 40K "army list builder" comes along. This is just a thought, but I think that maybe an opportunity was wasted for discussing a possible licensing deal in which PP provides the data files for the Army Builder program. Imagine being able to download new files for new models/stats when the books go live. That might've been a better avenue to explore.

Licensing would imply LWD actually pay for some of the content that it facilitates the theft of. Not going to happen.

Unlike Heavy Metal Pro who were willing to operate within a license LWD has been, and remains, a parasite.

Kanluwen wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:While PP may have no hand in making Forward Kommander, they were asked to help correct the situation where some people were led to believe Forward Kommander is a LWD product.

Out of interest, and taking no sides in this debate at this time, do we know of anyone that downloaded Forward Kommander (or another such piece of software, including iBodger), expecting it to be by Lone Wolf Development? Or is this meant to be more of a preventative measure?

It seems to have been more of a preventative measure. Like LWD said here:
If you don't aggressively defend a trademark, you CAN lose it.

Not the question I was asking, Kanluwen. I am aware of, and accept, that if you do not defend a trademark it can lose it's status as a trademark. In this regard, contacting companies making similar organisational software and clarifying the situation regarding use of such trademarked terms is perfectly fine, though methods of doing so may vary in perceived politeness and eventual effectiveness.

My initial query was relating to the assertion that "some people were led to believe Forward Kommander is a LWD product." I was wondering if anyone had encountered such a scenario, when a potential LWD customer had downloaded a competing piece of software because when it was recommended to them as an "army builder", they took that to mean that it was a LWD program.

And I responded to your question with the answer "It seems to have been more of a preventative measure".

We can't really get any quality data on whether or not people downloaded it thinking it was a LWD product or not.
But yeah, I may have phrased the original statement a bit too solidly and should have had it as:
"they were asked to help correct the potential situation where some people may be led to believe that Forward Kommander is an official Lone Wolf Development addon for their Army Builder software"

lonewolfdevel wrote:
One interesting note regarding item #1 above. Neither time when GW released their own product did they ever contact Lone Wolf Development about our ongoing support of their products. And I don't believe they contacted the data file authors either. So, even when GW introduced a competing tool into the marketplace, they didn't see fit to close down Army Builder. Twice.

I'm sure that means nothing moving forward, but I find it to be indicative that GW has viewed Army Builder as a boon to their products in the past. As for the future, who knows?

Let's be perfectly clear here.

You sell a product that provides your customers with a mechanism to access trademarked and/or copyright protected unit names, point values, stats, and additional related information. Your product supplies all of this information to customers- it is the most salient feature of your software. You don't own any of the IP that your program supplies. Other companies do, such as GW or PP. You outrightly claimed in a previous post that this was a good thing, as it saves gamers money from buying books that they might regret. That it allows them to figuratively "test drive" an army before committing to buying it.

Now, here's the thing. There' nothing wrong with buying a book an deciding you don't like the content. Maybe annoying, maybe a little more expensive, but there's nothing wrong with it.

Your program circumvents this, and provides protected information; information that you have no legal authority or right to distribute or sell without approval or a license. As I said before, it's the entire selling feature of your software. And yet, you consistently deny that this is the case, a position that is so disingenuous it begs the question of "are you outrightly lying?", or "are you that blind to what you do, conceptually, as a business?".

Twice so far on this thread you have made the assertion that:

(in summary), "your business can't be violating another companies IP because these companies have never come at us (yet) and demanded that we desist in what we are doing. In fact, from my own personal perspective, we boost their sales, so we can't be violating their rights or doing wrong."

The ABSENCE of legal action against your company only shows us that the IP owners haven't devoted resources to closing you down yet. It doesn't disprove ANY of the points that I previously made, ie, that you sell software that allows people to access to IP that is not yours to sell and/or provide.

It's that hypocrisy that annoys many of the posters on these forums. You depend on and use IP that is not yours, then have the audacity to threaten these providers based on the notion that you don't like how separate 3rd parties speak about and refer to your products. It's, literally, flying rodent gak crazy.

The fact that you don't recognize this hypocrisy only adds more annoyance to the situation among many wargamers. I understand that nobody wants to say "Hey, I'm a hypocrite, but I have a family to feed and I need to sell this software". I also understand that you probably can't openly acknowledge your own hypocrisy, as it would give companies like GW and PP an opening to say to the judge:

"Your honor, even the guy at Lone Wolf knows and has previously acknowledged that he openly steals from us". I get it- you won't ever say it openly. But come on, you know what you do as a business. You know you don't pay for any of their content. Don't be a jerk and threaten the very people you steal from and for whom your livelihood is dependent upon with this product. And then, don't follow up by acting as if you are some sort of victim and/or have been treated poorly by the people you just threatened. It is ridiculous.

If Privateer Press decided to use your legal name, you would have a point. But your complaint is re: forum commentators and posters. On what basis can you dictate ANY terms on how third party people decide to refer to your product? Even if, and that's a real stretch... if you had a point, you still don't have any of the resources to stop all of the wargamers in the world that decide to post and converse from referring to your product a a generic noun, instead of as a pair of capitalized nouns. It's a losing case and cause from the very beginning. That you can'r/don't/refuse to recognize this boggles the mind.

Frankly, I find it very funny how PP decided to respond to you. The fact that you said you found it "severe" is odd, however. You threatened PP, and asked to have all references removed. You got exactly what you asked for- they removed all mention of you, forever. Like the old adage says, "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it."

I look forward to the possibility of the day when the newly legally aggressive GW decides to break Lone Wolf for its actions.

Guys - I realize this is (apparently?) a hot button issue, but lets leave the personal attacks out of it, OK?

Wow, I'm gonna have to repeat myself from an earlier post:

Why do people care so much about this?

If you don't like Lone Wolf or Army Builder, then don't buy it or use it. If you have a problem with either LW's C&D letter or PP's response to it, well....so what?

In what way, shape, or form does this issue impact any of our lives AT ALL?

If GW ever decides to pursue any legal action against LW, then that's their business. It still doesn't hurt or benefit any of us; hopefully, all of us are conversant enough with basic mathematics that we could go back to pen&paper lists.

Sometimes, when I see some of the overtly angry responses to this complete non-issue (from both sides), I'm forced to accept what some people say about the relative level of socialization exhibited by gamers....

dogma wrote:Fateweaver has no room to complain about the incorrect usage of words.

Ah yes, personal attacks from you Dogma. Why am I not surprised? Go on with your bad liberal college educated self. Must make you feel warm and fuzzy to attack people on a nerd forum. Don't you have something you should be doing with the education mom and dad paid for instead of sitting on dakka all day?

efarrer wrote:

Vladigar wrote:Unlike Heavy Metal Pro who were willing to operate within a license LWD has been, and remains, a parasite.

I think calling them a 'parasite' is a bit of a stretch. A symbiotic relationship at worse, as both parties derive value from it. the only party Army Builder arguably 'takes advantage of' is the data file creators, and they do so willingly. If Army Builder was cross platform, I'd probably try to make an 'official' datafile release for some games I'm involved with.