Wouldn't it be, given GW's recent reported behaviour, like Walkers saying "Supermarket 'A' can select enough of our product that they can freely choose which varieties they stock, and how much, because they are ordering way over our self-imposed minimum quantities. Supermarket 'A' will be told of upcoming competitions, promotions, and other product changes up to 3 months ahead of release date. Corner shop 'Z', however, does not order enough so the following conditions must be met.
1. Corner shop 'Z' is not allowed to sell any "Roast Chicken" flavour, our most popular, until they have sold x packets of "Cheese and Onion" as that is the flavour we want to push.
Granted this doesn't really apply to food retailers but some other retailers do actually do this and specially select stores to host their products.
2. On release of a new flavour, corner shop 'Z' will be required to place an order within 2 weeks of flavour notification, but will not be suppled with advertising until 2 weeks before release date, and may not use this advertising or otherwise notify potential customers until 5 days before release date. Minimum order quantity applies, but orders may not be fulfilled in their entirety. (Order 6 cases, we may drop off 4 bags.)
Technically speaking when it comes to food products you don't know about them until they have been released. As soon as you see the advert on the telly for them that is when they are available in store.
3. No corner shop will sell multipacks to people suspected of splitting these down for re-sale, nor will they sell single packs to persons suspected of selling on single crisps. (condition not enforcable for supermarkets)
It does say on multipacks the phrase "Not to be sold separately". This can be seen on crisps as well as canned drinks like Coca Cola.
4. Any corner shop found to be in breach of these conditions wil forfeit status and will be required to buy product at higher cost for a period not less than 6 months
Its not illegal to sell multiple pack items separately. Manufacturers just don't want the shops to sell them separately, so they dictate the terms to them. If said retailers fail to comply to a reasonable standard then the manufacturers won't be happy with them. They allow it for reduced items to clear (i.e. Damaged product with a missing piece, like a four pack of Beer that has only 3 cans, but obviously at a reduced price).
P.S. That goes double for corner shops tenously connected to pidgeon fanciers who can use homing pidgeons to send messages to other areas about rumored new flavours, pack designs, ad campaigns, etc. - added mid-year to stomp down on imagined problemI find it inexplicable that GW seem to be doing all they can to destroy their own reputation, margin, market share, etc. I'm certainly moving over to Kettle Chips in future!
Well it didn't damage the reputation of crisp and fizzy drink sellers. For the most part people just didn't care.
When I started, they used to print the order codes for the latest models in the back of the WD every month. Not just of the whole models, but of the pieces. Converting stuff was just a matter of phoning them, giving them the codes for the bits you wanted, paying them, and they turned up in the post. Now whilst I am fully aware of the problems that caused them, and the fact that you just can't do that with Styrene frames unless you sell the entire frame, how many people are seriously going to buy 'x' number of packs to get the 'y' number of parts they need? So bits sites sprang up. Not content with having people outside of GW taking the risk that certain bits won't sell, GW wants to stop all this trade - oblivious that whilst people may be prepared to buy a set or two of Valk engines for a completely unrelated modelling project, £40-£80 for three or four engines and a load of (to them) useless bits is way out of reality.
Exactly like what the food retailers did. They didn't like that their products were being split up and sold separately so they dictated terms to the retailers. Even though it is not illegal for retailers to do this I might add.
And how many GD winners in the last 10 years have been Out-Of-Box models with standard posing? Not many, I bet. (OK, maybe a glut from this year's Warhammer Skink, but in general I believe you need a converted model to stand much of a chance.)
Thats true. You certainly need something special to win GD. I did like the Tau Armies on Parade with the working water fountain though.
The reality of the situation GW are seeming to want to put themselves in, seems counter-productive to me. Allow bits sellers and you encourage imagination and creativity whilst expanding your target demographic through social media sites, like this one, as people share their creations made from <gasp> your product! after all, if I go to a bits site to buy the engines I want, where did he get the kit from? So if GW's finances rely on getting every penny profit from every single kit, someone needs to point out that 5% on 100 sales is better than 7% on 20 sales.
Well I prefer to be able to get bits separately myself and at least food companies do tend to sell their stuff in singles also, so perhaps its not such a big deal when food companies do it. I'm not saying I like what GW do in these kind of instances but I tend to not really care about how they dictate the terms of their own products, because its their bag to do so. If they end up hurting themselves in the process then thats their fault.
I would hate to see this hobby go bust and for GW to go out of buisness but at the end of the day they make their choices when it comes to marketing for better or worse. I don't have a big problem with them wanting a say about how their products get sold on. However I did think it was ridiculous that they wanted to claim trademark for the term Space Marine. However I am a lot more forgiven than a lot of other people, so I chalk it up as a mistake they made and move on.
As to their idea that impulse buying is the key to their success, that would work better - and indeed did work better - when you could get a rhino for £5 or 3 for £10. With the cost of the stuff they produce now - and it is undoubtedly better quality than the RTB01 era - running to anything up to £70 for something you may need multiples of in an army, I don't know of many people who could honestly say they could afford to drop even the cost of one as an 'Impulse' purchase. I recently had to replace my portable DVD player, and it cost £70 to get one with a bigger screen and better functions, but I knew the old one was playing up so started to save £1 coins. By the time I had to actually look for the replacement, I had more than enough to do so. I could comfortably look for a replacement, judge each on it's merits, and make an informed decision.
There is a kid down at our store who always ends up with these kind of impulse buys. He plays in the apocalypse games with the Vets and whenever anyone has a toy that does something really amazing you can bet he will have it within a few weeks. He did this with the flying necron croissant. He saw it in a game and two weeks later he had 3 of his own.
I told him at the weekend there he actually needs to invest in an army and not just buy all the unique toys and not to be fooled by the idea that apocalypse is all about just bringing the uber units you want to the field. Although yes you can do that, having an army is better for synergy. Having an ally is OK too, but its just no good buying individual units with no thought about how they are going to work together.
I truly believe that GW make some of the best models in '28mm' out there. I have both Tau and Necron armies, and would have loved to update the both of them. But I cannot bring myself to buy a single tomb spider or Riptide as I believe that the GW management are trying to comit financial suicide - as has been ponted out previously GW is growing by a few percent in a market growing by much larger amounts, even in this economy - and I believe anything that drags out their demise at this point is just being cruel.
I do worry about their long term future. The fact that they had to downsize a lot of stores shows this. They have been struggling for quite a few years now and they are desparate to protect their IP because they think this has something to do with their downturn. I honestly believe that they are struggling to compete because of the reasons I stated earlier. Their overheads compared to other companies is hurting them drastically and I believe its the reason for all the downsizing. Heck, they even downsized Games Day this year.
DarthOvious wrote: [
I do worry about their long term future. The fact that they had to downsize a lot of stores shows this. They have been struggling for quite a few years now and they are desparate to protect their IP because they think this has something to do with their downturn. I honestly believe that they are struggling to compete because of the reasons I stated earlier. Their overheads compared to other companies is hurting them drastically and I believe its the reason for all the downsizing. Heck, they even downsized Games Day this year.
Downsizing is a pretty standard way of increasing profits on paper... have less people to pay, the more money you make. It's usually a short term solution.
DarthOvious wrote: [
I do worry about their long term future. The fact that they had to downsize a lot of stores shows this. They have been struggling for quite a few years now and they are desparate to protect their IP because they think this has something to do with their downturn. I honestly believe that they are struggling to compete because of the reasons I stated earlier. Their overheads compared to other companies is hurting them drastically and I believe its the reason for all the downsizing. Heck, they even downsized Games Day this year.
Downsizing is a pretty standard way of increasing profits on paper... have less people to pay, the more money you make. It's usually a short term solution.
True, its also a sign that they don't need the staff in the shops anymore because they receive less custom. Perhaps more people are buying from the net rather than going to the store, so that means less staff in the store. Probably another potential problem really. If you don't need the staff in store but the store is where all the gaming action is then it creates a problem.
I still think its a big problem for GW that some online retailers can offer 20% off the price, because this then means more people buy off those retailers rather than GW and this could hit their profit margins. Don't get me wrong I have bought from those retailers in the past also so I am not having a dig. I am just making an observation in regards to the buisness. How can GW maintain the stores and their investment in their future products if their profit margins decrease because customers buy off other retailers rather than them.
DarthOvious wrote: [
I do worry about their long term future. The fact that they had to downsize a lot of stores shows this. They have been struggling for quite a few years now and they are desparate to protect their IP because they think this has something to do with their downturn. I honestly believe that they are struggling to compete because of the reasons I stated earlier. Their overheads compared to other companies is hurting them drastically and I believe its the reason for all the downsizing. Heck, they even downsized Games Day this year.
Downsizing is a pretty standard way of increasing profits on paper... have less people to pay, the more money you make. It's usually a short term solution.
True, its also a sign that they don't need the staff in the shops anymore because they receive less custom. Perhaps more people are buying from the net rather than going to the store, so that means less staff in the store. Probably another potential problem really. If you don't need the staff in store but the store is where all the gaming action is then it creates a problem.
I still think its a big problem for GW that some online retailers can offer 20% off the price, because this then means more people buy off those retailers rather than GW and this could hit their profit margins. Don't get me wrong I have bought from those retailers in the past also so I am not having a dig. I am just making an observation in regards to the buisness. How can GW maintain the stores and their investment in their future products if their profit margins decrease because customers buy off other retailers rather than them.
Indeed, The stores didn't make enough money to justify the amount of people they had, at least localy, I know my local store makes more profit then they used to, they sell a little less, but they don't pay 5 people anymore. I was speaking from a pure busines standpoint of cutting people increasing profits, more so if they are cuting no retail outlet people, but then it depends on the business.
If GW cared about people offering 20% discounts, they would jack up their prices to independents or deal with it through trade agreements, plenty of places have set price points. (Apple)
Indeed, The stores didn't make enough money to justify the amount of people they had, at least localy, I know my local store makes more profit then they used to, they sell a little less, but they don't pay 5 people anymore. I was speaking from a pure busines standpoint of cutting people increasing profits, more so if they are cuting no retail outlet people, but then it depends on the business.
Agreed.
If GW cared about people offering 20% discounts, they would jack up their prices to independents or deal with it through trade agreements, plenty of places have set price points. (Apple)
I thought this was what they were doing with their trade agreements anyway. They won't be allowed to specify what price the independent retailers can sell on for but they have been clearly unhappy with the website stores for a long time now. I thought part of the last trade agreement was you needed a brick and mortar store in order to be able to sell GW products on to the public. I remember Matt from Miniwargaming stating this in their video on the last trade agreement. I think Wayland Games do actually have a brick and mortor store that they also sell from, but its just that most of their trade is done from over the internet.
I'm just going to take a moment to congratulate everyone on the quality of discussion in this thread, by pg 11 in most threads about GW being "a bit odd" the name calling and faeces slinging is well underway!
GW isn't going anywhere. All the prophecies of its doom I've heard in the last 15 years have been proved false, and yet there's always people like you lot making them, convincing yourself that no, this time it's different. Bollocks. You're not special, GW hasn't gone off the deep end lately, nothing's substantially different than it was in 1997 when people were worried about 3E destroying 40k as a game. Kickstarters, garage companies, resin kit makers or these forums might as well not exist as far as GW bottom line is concerned.
That doesn't mean they're nice. They are not nice. Some call them bullies. Maybe. But they endure. They're not great games designers, great miniatures designers, great at PR or even great at storytelling. They're like one of those WWE wrestlers with no flashy moves, speed, charisma or obvious talent for entertainment, but who can stand there in the ring and take fifty hits without feeling it.
Agamemnon2 wrote: GW isn't going anywhere. All the prophecies of its doom I've heard in the last 15 years have been proved false, and yet there's always people like you lot making them, convincing yourself that no, this time it's different. Bollocks. You're not special, GW hasn't gone off the deep end lately, nothing's substantially different than it was in 1997 when people were worried about 3E destroying 40k as a game. Kickstarters, garage companies, resin kit makers or these forums might as well not exist as far as GW bottom line is concerned.
That doesn't mean they're nice. They are not nice. Some call them bullies. Maybe. But they endure. They're not great games designers, great miniatures designers, great at PR or even great at storytelling. They're like one of those WWE wrestlers with no flashy moves, speed, charisma or obvious talent for entertainment, but who can stand there in the ring and take fifty hits without feeling it.
Games Workshop is the Big Show of wargaming
More like Al Snow...
I would disagree on the mini designers part, They arn't 100% but They do a lot of good. (what ais good is purly in the eye of the beholder though, yo umay like... say... PP minis, that i persoanly can't stand... neither of us would be right or wrong) The do however have a good hold on how to make minis, and when the feel like it, how to make minis that can be customized well (DE, original SM etc)
The reason why GW needs to keep the retail shops going is because the shops and White Dwarf are their only forms of marketing apart from word of mouth from existing players.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why GW needs to keep the retail shops going is because the shops and White Dwarf are their only forms of marketing apart from word of mouth from existing players.
there are not enough retail shops (in the US) to consider it advertising... I live in California, My GW store is the farthest one north, and I live about 9 hours from Oregon... that's about what, the UK in distance?
azreal13 wrote: I'm just going to take a moment to congratulate everyone on the quality of discussion in this thread, by pg 11 in most threads about GW being "a bit odd" the name calling and faeces slinging is well underway!
There is still time yet to have it devolve into a monkey fight.
Agamemnon2 wrote: GW isn't going anywhere. All the prophecies of its doom I've heard in the last 15 years have been proved false, and yet there's always people like you lot making them, convincing yourself that no, this time it's different. Bollocks. You're not special, GW hasn't gone off the deep end lately, nothing's substantially different than it was in 1997 when people were worried about 3E destroying 40k as a game. Kickstarters, garage companies, resin kit makers or these forums might as well not exist as far as GW bottom line is concerned.
That doesn't mean they're nice. They are not nice. Some call them bullies. Maybe. But they endure. They're not great games designers, great miniatures designers, great at PR or even great at storytelling. They're like one of those WWE wrestlers with no flashy moves, speed, charisma or obvious talent for entertainment, but who can stand there in the ring and take fifty hits without feeling it.
Games Workshop is the Big Show of wargaming
What do you mean by "us lot." You may hold a different opinion, but you're still "one of us"
The fact is, back in 2nd/3rd 40K, there really wasn't a viable alternative. Sure, there were other games, but they came and went, my miniature shelves back in the day were littered with models from games that simply hadn't stayed the course.
Fast forward 15 or so years, and my return to gaming after not rolling a dice since early third, and the market is a very different place. Hell, you can even look back at my gaming club from its founding in early 2012 to see a difference. We started as almost exclusively 40K, with the odd game of Fantasy or Specialist Game to break things up.
Last night, one could have turned up cold and still had a good chance of a game of Infinity, Warmahordes, or X Wing. Sure, GW's games are still popular, but in the span of less than two years they've gone from literally the only game in town to just one among many. Is my club an anomaly? Possibly, but my interactions with gamers from other towns nearby and on Dakka suggest that it probably isn't the case.
That's the difference between now and then. No longer is a tabletop wargamer more or less obliged to play a GW game in order to have anything but the slightest chance of getting a game. There are established, popular, high quality alternatives that are, either anecdotally or definitively growing larger and larger, and in 25 years around this hobby, even when I wasn't playing I still kept a toe in, I can't think of a time when this was ever the case.
Also, as the technology gets more accessible and with the advent of Kickstarter, the barrier to entry has never been lower, if you have a quality product or idea, the only thing you really need is the passion and diligence to get your idea out there, no longer do you need to be beholden to men in grey suits who don't understand the market or need to find ££££ in capital to fund equipment.
Having said all that, fundamentally, I agree with your main point. GW won't die, implode or whatever, they're too big and too stable for theirs to be a quick and honourable death, they will stagger around, crying, with snot running out of their nose a long time before they're in any serious danger, but being a publicly owned company, catching that sort of cold will ultimately precipitate change, or Kirby retires, whichever happens first can't happen soon enough for this poster, and maybe whoever takes over can recapture a little bit of what took GW to the top in the first place.
Agamemnon2 wrote: GW isn't going anywhere. All the prophecies of its doom I've heard in the last 15 years have been proved false, and yet there's always people like you lot making them, convincing yourself that no, this time it's different. Bollocks. You're not special, GW hasn't gone off the deep end lately, nothing's substantially different than it was in 1997 when people were worried about 3E destroying 40k as a game. Kickstarters, garage companies, resin kit makers or these forums might as well not exist as far as GW bottom line is concerned.
True, none of those things happened in the past. We are however in a diificult period economically. GW will probably survive like they usually do as do most companies but every now and again a high street store does go out of buisness.
That doesn't mean they're nice. They are not nice. Some call them bullies. Maybe. But they endure. They're not great games designers, great miniatures designers, great at PR or even great at storytelling. They're like one of those WWE wrestlers with no flashy moves, speed, charisma or obvious talent for entertainment, but who can stand there in the ring and take fifty hits without feeling it.
Games Workshop is the Big Show of wargaming
Agreed, GW are the biggest company at the moment. All we can do is hope they get smarter with their buisness practices.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why GW needs to keep the retail shops going is because the shops and White Dwarf are their only forms of marketing apart from word of mouth from existing players.
there are not enough retail shops (in the US) to consider it advertising... I live in California, My GW store is the farthest one north, and I live about 9 hours from Oregon... that's about what, the UK in distance?
I agree, however it still is their only form of marketing other than WD and word of mouth.
That is why it's a bit strange to crack down on word of mouth channels like YouTubers, blogs and forum sites.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why GW needs to keep the retail shops going is because the shops and White Dwarf are their only forms of marketing apart from word of mouth from existing players.
there are not enough retail shops (in the US) to consider it advertising... I live in California, My GW store is the farthest one north, and I live about 9 hours from Oregon... that's about what, the UK in distance?
Wow, what a distance to travel. Obviously I live in the UK and as I have said already I have two GW stores I go to. There is a local one where I live and one I get the train to on a Saturday because they do an Apocalypse session in the afternoon. There are others as well that I don't go to I could if I wanted to.
DarthOvious wrote: There is a kid down at our store who always ends up with these kind of impulse buys. He plays in the apocalypse games with the Vets and whenever anyone has a toy that does something really amazing you can bet he will have it within a few weeks. He did this with the flying necron croissant. He saw it in a game and two weeks later he had 3 of his own.
I told him at the weekend there he actually needs to invest in an army and not just buy all the unique toys and not to be fooled by the idea that apocalypse is all about just bringing the uber units you want to the field. Although yes you can do that, having an army is better for synergy. Having an ally is OK too, but its just no good buying individual units with no thought about how they are going to work together.
I truly believe that GW make some of the best models in '28mm' out there. I have both Tau and Necron armies, and would have loved to update the both of them. But I cannot bring myself to buy a single tomb spider or Riptide as I believe that the GW management are trying to comit financial suicide - as has been ponted out previously GW is growing by a few percent in a market growing by much larger amounts, even in this economy - and I believe anything that drags out their demise at this point is just being cruel.
I do worry about their long term future. The fact that they had to downsize a lot of stores shows this. They have been struggling for quite a few years now and they are desparate to protect their IP because they think this has something to do with their downturn. I honestly believe that they are struggling to compete because of the reasons I stated earlier. Their overheads compared to other companies is hurting them drastically and I believe its the reason for all the downsizing. Heck, they even downsized Games Day this year.
Well GW have taken someone who spent a significant slice of his disposable income on their product - I have a total of 4 armies (SM, Nids, Tau and Necron in that order of purchase IIRC) none of which are 'current' models except a single Necron flyer and Doomsday Ark. both of those were bought as modelling projects only. I also used to paint everything with GW rattlecan primer and GW paint. Yes, Everything. Horizon Arnie T-800 from Terminator 2, Elvira, Finemoulds 1:72 scale TIE fighter and TIE Interceptor. Everything.
Now, due to increased costs and reports of behaviour I find inexplicable for a business, I have absolute zero interest in anything they produce. I will still work on stuff I already have, including a 5 man squad of inquisitor scale marines, but will not get anything further from them. I am changing all my paints to Vallejo (And will use those to paint whatever GW stuff I already own that is either not actually painted yet, or due a repaint to get it up to my current standard.), have bought Rosemary & Co brushes, and am turning to other manufacturers such as DreamForge Games for my models.
As GW don't make much profit from rules systems - the only reason they 'update' games like WH40K is to get a better chance at releasing new models - it seems puzzling to seem them attempt to cut off the modelling community with such spite. As has been said before, information leads purchasers to make informed choices. You cut off that information and you run the risk of having customers decide to spend there money somewhere they are getting told what they need to save for. You start a community based on "You can do whatever you like", then remove all options to (Economically) do that, expect a downturn in sales. And yes, 40K WAS originally "Do what you like". In the original RT book, they showed you how to make a grav tank for the imperium using an old deodourant bottle and a plastic spoon. (I wonder how "Blue Peter" would have taken it if GW had used "Sticky-backed plastic" in that model? ) White Dwarf used to contain adverts for other companies models.
I don't see GW doing that now, presumably because they don't have the confidence that their stuff is, on a good day at least, better than that. And yet, I do love the design of the Riptide, I'd like to get one - and the eldar equivalent, and a load of other stuff - but I will not be part of the problem here. And that's too many people saying to GW "Your tactics and prices are acceptable. You know this because we are still buying from you despite whatever pressure you put on independants, nor whatever prices you charge, nor whatever restrictions you put up to retailers to make their jobs harder, nor even the (reported) removal of hobby space in your own stores will stop us from slobbering all over your windows every time you deign to go 'Shinies! Look at all the new shinies!' because you decide to cull all information about a release except an unfeasibly small window just before release."
so yes, it's my fault for wanting those heady days of GW being in the business of supplying what I wanted over today's "You'll get what we say you want, when we say you want it, paying whatever we think we can get away with charging for it." and I'm hoping that by removing my spending from their accounts I can add my voice to those others who are yelling, pleading, and cajoling GW to take a step back from the precipice.
I have a feeling that, if they get to a point where they are finacialy failing (not pushing numbers around so they seam like they are doing ok, but losing money to the shareholders) there will be a change... look at microsoft.... they have big falures, they dump the CEO and look for a change.... but that's probably not going to happen if money is still paid out nicley.
What do you mean by "us lot." You may hold a different opinion, but you're still "one of us"
The fact is, back in 2nd/3rd 40K, there really wasn't a viable alternative. Sure, there were other games, but they came and went, my miniature shelves back in the day were littered with models from games that simply hadn't stayed the course.
Fast forward 15 or so years, and my return to gaming after not rolling a dice since early third, and the market is a very different place. Hell, you can even look back at my gaming club from its founding in early 2012 to see a difference. We started as almost exclusively 40K, with the odd game of Fantasy or Specialist Game to break things up.
Last night, one could have turned up cold and still had a good chance of a game of Infinity, Warmahordes, or X Wing. Sure, GW's games are still popular, but in the span of less than two years they've gone from literally the only game in town to just one among many. Is my club an anomaly? Possibly, but my interactions with gamers from other towns nearby and on Dakka suggest that it probably isn't the case.
That's the difference between now and then. No longer is a tabletop wargamer more or less obliged to play a GW game in order to have anything but the slightest chance of getting a game. There are established, popular, high quality alternatives that are, either anecdotally or definitively growing larger and larger, and in 25 years around this hobby, even when I wasn't playing I still kept a toe in, I can't think of a time when this was ever the case.
Also, as the technology gets more accessible and with the advent of Kickstarter, the barrier to entry has never been lower, if you have a quality product or idea, the only thing you really need is the passion and diligence to get your idea out there, no longer do you need to be beholden to men in grey suits who don't understand the market or need to find ££££ in capital to fund equipment.
Having said all that, fundamentally, I agree with your main point. GW won't die, implode or whatever, they're too big and too stable for theirs to be a quick and honourable death, they will stagger around, crying, with snot running out of their nose a long time before they're in any serious danger, but being a publicly owned company, catching that sort of cold will ultimately precipitate change, or Kirby retires, whichever happens first can't happen soon enough for this poster, and maybe whoever takes over can recapture a little bit of what took GW to the top in the first place.
My local gaming club has taken to playing Warmachine now. Personally I don't like it. It just doesn't look like a game that interests me. I have played X-Wing in the past though and I do like that although I don't actually own any X-Wing minis.
My biggest interest is still 40k. I do own some fantasy stuff as well. I also have some MTG decks as well and I own a copy of Death Angel (Space Hulk card game) and some expansion packs for it. Thats pretty much my interests when it comes to games other than computer games.
Ditto, I can't get excited about Warmahordes, by contrast a good gaming buddy of mine has gone evangelical about it and completely dropped GW. Horses for courses I guess.
I rate X Wing highly, Infinity is great too, although I've only played a handful of games. It's looking like a few of us may pick up Darklands too.
I will continue to play 40K, but I now modify my purchases to reduce any spending with GW to the absolute minimum, and once my current army is finished (itself composed of as many counts as models from other manufacturers as possible) it will take something spectacular for GW to get my gaming pound in the future.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why GW needs to keep the retail shops going is because the shops and White Dwarf are their only forms of marketing apart from word of mouth from existing players.
there are not enough retail shops (in the US) to consider it advertising... I live in California, My GW store is the farthest one north, and I live about 9 hours from Oregon... that's about what, the UK in distance?
Wow, what a distance to travel. Obviously I live in the UK and as I have said already I have two GW stores I go to. There is a local one where I live and one I get the train to on a Saturday because they do an Apocalypse session in the afternoon. There are others as well that I don't go to I could if I wanted to.
I actualy have 2 local to me... 15 min and 30 min away... but if i lived in Sacramento (my states capital) I would have to drive to Ventura (where my closest store is) and that's about 6 hours... the stores are also in hidden areas now (they used to be at the mall) I know why they moved out... that's why I don't think it's primarily advertising that they have stores.. the stores need to make profits or people get fired and stores close... If it was advertising primarily, then they wold be able to operate at a loss localy... (to a point of course)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: Ditto, I can't get excited about Warmahordes, by contrast a good gaming buddy of mine has gone evangelical about it and completely dropped GW. Horses for courses I guess.
I rate X Wing highly, Infinity is great too, although I've only played a handful of games. It's looking like a few of us may pick up Darklands too.
I will continue to play 40K, but I now modify my purchases to reduce any spending with GW to the absolute minimum, and once my current army is finished (itself composed of as many counts as models from other manufacturers as possible) it will take something spectacular for GW to get my gaming pound in the future.
I hate the warmahordes minis...
Malifaux is fun, and i'm excited about robotech... but they are diffrent games then 40k.... Malifaux has small battles (mind you my first 2e game isn't happening till a week from sat) and robotech is purely my need to relive my youth through minis.... 40k is just fun for me... i play with the same people i've played since the beggining, and i go to the store for pick up games (there aren't pick up games or really anywhere else locally that we can just go play at)
GW will live, or die... but it will be a while... the large amount of material they have, books, games, minis and general wargaming exposure drives them on....my friends who only play 40k only buy what they need to play more these days, but they arent looking to play any other games either...IF gw died, they would just keep playing what they have and not move to another game... i have a few other friends who play every game under the sun...
I spend far less on 40k then i used to, but i wound't say it's because GW did anything, more that i have other priorities with my money. i've been doing this for 15 ish years, in that time i've developed more intrests then wargaming,
Well GW have taken someone who spent a significant slice of his disposable income on their product - I have a total of 4 armies (SM, Nids, Tau and Necron in that order of purchase IIRC) none of which are 'current' models except a single Necron flyer and Doomsday Ark. both of those were bought as modelling projects only. I also used to paint everything with GW rattlecan primer and GW paint. Yes, Everything. Horizon Arnie T-800 from Terminator 2, Elvira, Finemoulds 1:72 scale TIE fighter and TIE Interceptor. Everything.
Now, due to increased costs and reports of behaviour I find inexplicable for a business, I have absolute zero interest in anything they produce. I will still work on stuff I already have, including a 5 man squad of inquisitor scale marines, but will not get anything further from them. I am changing all my paints to Vallejo (And will use those to paint whatever GW stuff I already own that is either not actually painted yet, or due a repaint to get it up to my current standard.), have bought Rosemary & Co brushes, and am turning to other manufacturers such as DreamForge Games for my models.
As is the case sometimes. It happens. sometimes customers shop elsewhere because they don't like a company's actions. I actually changed my mobile provider because I was dissatified with the way they dealt with an issue I had. Company's depend on keeping their customers and its all about keeping existing customers while bringing in new ones while maintaining a profit. Sometimes they just fail to satisfy everyone.
As GW don't make much profit from rules systems - the only reason they 'update' games like WH40K is to get a better chance at releasing new models - it seems puzzling to seem them attempt to cut off the modelling community with such spite. As has been said before, information leads purchasers to make informed choices. You cut off that information and you run the risk of having customers decide to spend there money somewhere they are getting told what they need to save for. You start a community based on "You can do whatever you like", then remove all options to (Economically) do that, expect a downturn in sales. And yes, 40K WAS originally "Do what you like". In the original RT book, they showed you how to make a grav tank for the imperium using an old deodourant bottle and a plastic spoon. (I wonder how "Blue Peter" would have taken it if GW had used "Sticky-backed plastic" in that model? ) White Dwarf used to contain adverts for other companies models.
Back in the good old days when GW wasn't a PLC. Unfortunately when a company becomes a PLC it also becomes more focussed on profits.
I don't see GW doing that now, presumably because they don't have the confidence that their stuff is, on a good day at least, better than that. And yet, I do love the design of the Riptide, I'd like to get one - and the eldar equivalent, and a load of other stuff - but I will not be part of the problem here. And that's too many people saying to GW "Your tactics and prices are acceptable. You know this because we are still buying from you despite whatever pressure you put on independants, nor whatever prices you charge, nor whatever restrictions you put up to retailers to make their jobs harder, nor even the (reported) removal of hobby space in your own stores will stop us from slobbering all over your windows every time you deign to go 'Shinies! Look at all the new shinies!' because you decide to cull all information about a release except an unfeasibly small window just before release."
It depends on a persons point of view in concerns to it all. As I have stated I don't have a problem with this particular incident. I did have a problem with the whole Space MArine trademark thing though, so I'm not saying that don't make bad decisions. They do. It just all depends on how many people take issue with what they do.
so yes, it's my fault for wanting those heady days of GW being in the business of supplying what I wanted over today's "You'll get what we say you want, when we say you want it, paying whatever we think we can get away with charging for it." and I'm hoping that by removing my spending from their accounts I can add my voice to those others who are yelling, pleading, and cajoling GW to take a step back from the precipice.
Thats the way to make a difference. If you are unhappy with a company then don't give them your money and its the exact same thing I would do. I'm just not in a position where I feel I would do that yet but who knows, perhaps GW will hack me off one day and I'll stop giving them my money as well.
Back in the good old days when GW wasn't a PLC. Unfortunately when a company becomes a PLC it also becomes more focussed on profits.
Believe me, that focus isn't exclusive to PLCs!
It is a truism that happy customers spend more though, which is why GW appearing so totally indifferent to the disillusionment of "us lot" is so baffling and frustrating to me, you don't pander to the crowd who will give you their business regardless, you focus on those that don't, in the hope that you will change their mind, your business will grow and you make more profit!
I would disagree on the mini designers part, They arn't 100% but They do a lot of good. (what ais good is purly in the eye of the beholder though, yo umay like... say... PP minis, that i persoanly can't stand... neither of us would be right or wrong) The do however have a good hold on how to make minis, and when the feel like it, how to make minis that can be customized well (DE, original SM etc)
I do wonder if currentGW are really that good any more.
All the 'hit' new models are variations on the designs done by the people that created the games in the first place, the misses are nearly always where they stray from the well trodden path.
The Jes Goodwin/Naismith designs for space marines are really the foundation the whole thing is built on, aided by the lotr minis that were copies of the movie trilogy's designs.
Even the big monsters in fantasy are usually based on mythical tropes.
I would disagree on the mini designers part, They arn't 100% but They do a lot of good. (what ais good is purly in the eye of the beholder though, yo umay like... say... PP minis, that i persoanly can't stand... neither of us would be right or wrong) The do however have a good hold on how to make minis, and when the feel like it, how to make minis that can be customized well (DE, original SM etc)
I do wonder if currentGW are really that good any more.
All the 'hit' new models are variations on the designs done by the people that created the games in the first place, the misses are nearly always where they stray from the well trodden path.
The Jes Goodwin/Naismith designs for space marines are really the foundation the whole thing is built on, aided by the lotr minis that were copies of the movie trilogy's designs.
Even the big monsters in fantasy are usually based on mythical tropes.
The necrons were splended, DE, splended, New eldar, Splended, the riptide, spended
Back in the good old days when GW wasn't a PLC. Unfortunately when a company becomes a PLC it also becomes more focussed on profits.
Believe me, that focus isn't exclusive to PLCs!
It is a truism that happy customers spend more though, which is why GW appearing so totally indifferent to the disillusionment of "us lot" is so baffling and frustrating to me, you don't pander to the crowd who will give you their business regardless, you focus on those that don't, in the hope that you will change their mind, your business will grow and you make more profit!
Agreed. Happy customers spend more money. However we all know how that companies in general have a hard time meeting this philosophy. Pretty much most of the mobile phone companies here in the UK are generally regarded as rubbish. O2 seem to be labelled the best of a bad bunch.
Its up to the other modelling compnaies to hit GW where it hurts. Some people believe they are successful in that regard while others don't.
The necrons were splended, DE, splended, New eldar, Splended, the riptide, spended
All of which are based on designs paradigms set out at least a decade ago, and even twice that.
There are nice models in those ranges, but nice because they are recognisably Tau, Eldar or Necron perhaps?
The true creativity moved on from the company a long time ago, Blanch and Goodwin excepted,and I'm not entirely sure the current design team are really superior to anyone else out there any longer, they just have a better canvas to begin with.
insaniak wrote: They have stated publicly why they try to clamp down on rumours and advance showing of their product, and it's nothing to do with competitors stealing their thunder. It's because despite all rational evidence to the contrary (including sales from their own subsidiaries), they believe that not knowing that something is coming makes people more excited about it (and this more likely to buy it) when it is released.
It's lunacy, plain and simple.
In fairness, purchases of WD went up 10% when they started clamping down on leaks. I wouldn't be surpised if they had some sales figures that back up the "impulse purchase" opinion.
The necrons were splended, DE, splended, New eldar, Splended, the riptide, spended
All of which are based on designs paradigms set out at least a decade ago, and even twice that.
There are nice models in those ranges, but nice because they are recognisably Tau, Eldar or Necron perhaps?
The true creativity moved on from the company a long time ago, Blanch and Goodwin excepted,and I'm not entirely sure the current design team are really superior to anyone else out there any longer, they just have a better canvas to begin with.
So they should reinvent the wheel? Create something that doesn't fit with the design aesthetic? Create a new race... oh wait then everyone would complain that they havn't finished the old...
The DE (albeit years ago) are diffrent then thier other minis, usre there are design cues... same with the crons, the fliers, the arks the barges, they didn't exist anywhere (well the scythe is pretty battlestar0 the new eldar, sure they have a lot of cues form the older ones, but then they should... the way the Knight goes to geather is amazing, as is th ability to pose it... same with the riptide..
The necrons were splended, DE, splended, New eldar, Splended, the riptide, spended
All of which are based on designs paradigms set out at least a decade ago, and even twice that.
There are nice models in those ranges, but nice because they are recognisably Tau, Eldar or Necron perhaps?
The true creativity moved on from the company a long time ago, Blanch and Goodwin excepted,and I'm not entirely sure the current design team are really superior to anyone else out there any longer, they just have a better canvas to begin with.
So they should reinvent the wheel? Create something that doesn't fit with the design aesthetic? Create a new race... oh wait then everyone would complain that they havn't finished the old...
The DE (albeit years ago) are diffrent then thier other minis, usre there are design cues... same with the crons, the fliers, the arks the barges, they didn't exist anywhere (well the scythe is pretty battlestar0 the new eldar, sure they have a lot of cues form the older ones, but then they should... the way the Knight goes to geather is amazing, as is th ability to pose it... same with the riptide..
Personally I love the new Riptide. In saying that the Forgeworld model is an absolute cracker as well. I picked one up at games day.
The necrons were splended, DE, splended, New eldar, Splended, the riptide, spended
All of which are based on designs paradigms set out at least a decade ago, and even twice that.
There are nice models in those ranges, but nice because they are recognisably Tau, Eldar or Necron perhaps?
The true creativity moved on from the company a long time ago, Blanch and Goodwin excepted,and I'm not entirely sure the current design team are really superior to anyone else out there any longer, they just have a better canvas to begin with.
So they should reinvent the wheel? Create something that doesn't fit with the design aesthetic? Create a new race... oh wait then everyone would complain that they havn't finished the old...
The DE (albeit years ago) are diffrent then thier other minis, usre there are design cues... same with the crons, the fliers, the arks the barges, they didn't exist anywhere (well the scythe is pretty battlestar0 the new eldar, sure they have a lot of cues form the older ones, but then they should... the way the Knight goes to geather is amazing, as is th ability to pose it... same with the riptide..
Personally I love the new Riptide. In saying that the Forgeworld model is an absolute cracker as well. I picked one up at games day.
i don't like the tau look personanly, but the model is well put togeather... the new FW one looks better to me
Back in the good old days when GW wasn't a PLC. Unfortunately when a company becomes a PLC it also becomes more focussed on profits.
Believe me, that focus isn't exclusive to PLCs!
It is a truism that happy customers spend more though, which is why GW appearing so totally indifferent to the disillusionment of "us lot" is so baffling and frustrating to me, you don't pander to the crowd who will give you their business regardless, you focus on those that don't, in the hope that you will change their mind, your business will grow and you make more profit!
Agreed. Happy customers spend more money. However we all know how that companies in general have a hard time meeting this philosophy. Pretty much most of the mobile phone companies here in the UK are generally regarded as rubbish. O2 seem to be labelled the best of a bad bunch.
Its up to the other modelling compnaies to hit GW where it hurts. Some people believe they are successful in that regard while others don't.
I think that the current situation is that GW is no longer the five-hundred pound gorilla, merely a three-hundred pound gorilla, in an industry of twenty or so fifty pound chimpanzees, two or three seventy-five pound orangutangs, and more bonobos than I can count....
If the chimps ever form a troupe then the gorilla is in deep... monkey poo?...
GW is still the biggest, but their share of the market is not growing as fast as the market itself is growing.
I now know more wargamers that don't play GW games than ones that do, but more wargamers that play one or another or several GW games than those that play any one of GW's competitors. Warmahordes is getting close, as is Kings of War (mostly because I have a group going - I am biasing my own numbers). The old TSR Battlesystem remains strong, there are some grognards that meet at the Armory to play.
And a number of folks that play a bunch of games - GW included.
The strongest GW games in my groups are not Warhammer or 40K... they are Mordheim and Necromunda....
The logic behind killing free advertising... is most likely flawed. Part of the reason that Warmahordes is expanding is that it has a lively community.
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
Veteran forum users are a minority of the overall GW user base but their influence is much greater than their number, due to being older brothers, club members and evangelists for the company's games.
Pissing off the veterans dilutes the valuable, "earned" marketing that GW partly depend on for sales growth.
Thanks, yes that was what I was trying to say, in much fewer words!
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
Can I ask to clarrify what you see as GW enforcing what they can't legally enforce? I'm just looking for an explanation on what we consider to be illegal about this activity.
This actually explains quite alot, I was wondering what happened to all of BoW's 40k content, they really scaled that down.
I guess the good side to this was BoW shifted it's focus onto the more nascent gaming systems, helping them gain a foothold in this industry dominated by GW.
I am a die-in-the-wall 40k fan, however Games Workshop is a huge disappointment.
GW need to take a look at themselves and be influenced by other companies of similar position to them. To name one, the LEGO company.
The Lego company has a large stake in an industry, similar to GW, however they treat their customers with utmost respect, and whenever accused of doing wrong they reply with a very respectful statement, apologizing for any damages and explaining everything clearly.
Sorry about the rant, but I hope BoW can now go on without the burden of a corporate bully.
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
Can I ask to clarrify what you see as GW enforcing what they can't legally enforce? I'm just looking for an explanation on what we consider to be illegal about this activity.
They can't legally prevent BoW for presenting rumours and spoilers since is nothing illegal about it, so they inserted the new trade agreement clause to try and shut BoW down through their affiliation with Wayland (by refusing to supply Wayland as long as they are associated with BoW).
And after talking to a few lawyery friends, I'm increasingly convinced that this is illegal in and of itself according to EU trade law...
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
"Worrying danger for the industry" or "dinosaur which is circling the drain because all their bad decisions are driving customers away"? They can't be both. Don't you think you're being just a tiny bit dramatic?
PhantomViper wrote: They can't legally prevent BoW for presenting rumours and spoilers since is nothing illegal about it, so they inserted the new trade agreement clause to try and shut BoW down through their affiliation with Wayland (by refusing to supply Wayland as long as they are associated with BoW).
I understood that this part wasn't illegal.
And after talking to a few lawyery friends, I'm increasingly convinced that this is illegal in and of itself according to EU trade law...
Interesting, I think this law was brought up earlier in the thread. Does it apply to this situation? Surely GW can supply to whomever they want since it is their product. I think the trade agreement just says that if you do X, then we will no longer supply you. From what I understood about the EU law was that it stated that you could not apply restrictions to another companies trade in concerns to products they actually have.
EDIT: Had to clarrify my sentence as it was dribble.
Bull0 wrote: "Worrying danger for the industry" or "dinosaur which is circling the drain because all their bad decisions are driving customers away"? They can't be both.
Why not? Games Workshop's death throes can still cause a lot of damage.
boyd wrote: Every time someone leaks something an image, it's pages of complaints unless there are dedicated fanboys to actually hype something up.
That's because most of GW's releases recently are disappointing. They're either truly awful (everything from Apocalypse 2.0) or mediocre milking of the cash cow (the "dip it in glue and roll it around in purity seals" marine models). There are some good kits (the new Tau pathfinders), but if you look at GW's average output it's not really a surprise that discussion of it would be dominated by negative comments.
I disagree with both of you, actually. While there'll always be someone "being cool" and going on about how crap anything they release is, a good many of their models get near-universal praise. The new Vanguard and Sternguard kits for example. The Witch Elves are another. I don't usually read the GW new-release threads all that much, but even from my infrequent and casual skimming, I've seen a lot of praise for various kits (as opposed to the Centurians or the Apoc Khorne Lord of Skulls thing.)
PhantomViper wrote: They can't legally prevent BoW for presenting rumours and spoilers since is nothing illegal about it, so they inserted the new trade agreement clause to try and shut BoW down through their affiliation with Wayland (by refusing to supply Wayland as long as they are associated with BoW).
I understood that this part wasn't illegal.
And after talking to a few lawyery friends, I'm increasingly convinced that this is illegal in and of itself according to EU trade law...
Interesting, I think this law was brought up earlier in the thread. Does it apply to this situation? Surely GW can supply to whomever they want since it is their product. I think the rade agreement just says that if you do X, then we will no longer supply you. From what I understood about the trade agreement it stated that you could apply restrictions to another companies trade in concerns to products they actually have.
Article 101 is designed to prevent cartels and companies with a very big market presence from using their influence to disrupt free trade within the EU. Section e) is the part that is applicable in this case:
make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
In this case, the secondary obligation which Wayland had to accept was the termination of their association with BoW (or making BoW stop releasing rumours and previews of GW products).
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
There was a case of a rather large Cosmetics company that was trying to prevent the sales of their products through online stores claiming that they damaged their brand name (or some such, I forgot the actual reasoning for the banning), they were found in breach of article 101 and fined and had to continue supplying the internet sellers.
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
"Worrying danger for the industry" or "dinosaur which is circling the drain because all their bad decisions are driving customers away"? They can't be both. Don't you think you're being just a tiny bit dramatic?
Never described them as the dinosaur circling the drain, you have to understand that I am not a GW customer for a decade, I loved their products in the past when they were in their prime age of creativity and quality, I am deeply disappointed by their new products that could be some of the best, but simply lack the ambition, the drive and the will to risk, but ultimately their health is irrelevant to me or my enjoyment in the hobby, the most disheartening part is that forgeworld seems to be what GW was in the past, I would wish FW (and black library) was GW, but that's a discussion for another time and another thread.
On the other hand, seen my local game stores struggle because of a massive move of good to best sellers to direct only, seen blogs, forums and companies been legally harassed with unfounded accusations, going out of business because of unethical contractual demands like no online stores (when they keep their) and no "out of region sales" is worrying at least, GW has the size and financial bulk to bring any opposition they want to ruin just by legally battling them, our industry does not companies in the league of GW and I am not sure pro bono representation will spring up every time GW thinks they can claim common domain IP as theirs, or any other excuse to bring them to court.
And the precedent of such behavior is well documented throughout the years, the fact that now that people and companies successfully defended themselves legally they resort to contractual amendments for specific cases is getting even more worrying, our industry could do without the big player harassing it instead of supporting it.
TBH you often see Warren making comments about his personal life, about what's he is doing with his wife and kids, things like that.
Look at what happened with the Chapterhouse case - GW filed a suit on Xmas eve, and it went on for years afterwards. Years of stress, financial concern, extra burden in your life, and dealing with comments from some of the social-misfits that seem to have been speaking for that company - it's one thing saying 'I'm in the right, this is my right to do this', and another to make that sacrifice for a small group of individuals, to take on what would be a giant by comparison. Whether there is any prerogative here for BoW to take things legal or not, I could completely understand why they wouldn't want to.
And ultimately, I think BoW will come out of this quite well. They've managed to resist what must have been the massive temptation to give the middle finger to GW, stop featuring their products altogether, and in doing so have also resisted GW's attempts to create an artificial divide between their products and the rest of the industry. To try and drive a wedge between the fan bases (I mean.. look at the amount of 'discussions' we have on the forum every time GW does something that is difficult for part of the consumer base to swallow). Ultimately, we are all on the same side; we want the best miniatures, the best games, for the best price possible. The events in the OP of this topic are purely the sign of an expensive legal team trying to justify it's existence, and of long term benefit to no-one, least of all GW themselves.
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
Where have you been the past couple of years? GW isn't above doing "less than legal" things to try and get their way, just look at the CHS case...
And have you watched the BoW video? Even getting a lawyer to look at a C&D and getting their opinion costs several hundred pounds. Do you think that a small operation like BoW or Wayland can afford to get into a legal dispute without some sort of free legal council, even if they are in the right?
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
No, the legal letters were before the contract, they tried their best to push their legal might they failed and since the legal threats did not work because there was nothing illegal, they custom made a trade agreement that, was specific to target wayland games/ BOW partnership, they broke their relationship because the contract was made specifically for them not because they agreed they did anything illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also interesting to see the point of view of another company burned by GWs sudden uncalled for trade agreements.
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
Where have you been the past couple of years? GW isn't above doing "less than legal" things to try and get their way, just look at the CHS case...
And have you watched the BoW video? Even getting a lawyer to look at a C&D and getting their opinion costs several hundred pounds. Do you think that a small operation like BoW or Wayland can afford to get into a legal dispute without some sort of free legal council, even if they are in the right?
Wayland are a small operation? Didn't they just open some huge gaming space or something? If they can't afford lawyers, that's a serious problem!
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
No, the legal letters were before the contract, they tried their best to push their legal might they failed and since the legal threats did not work because there was nothing illegal, they custom made a trade agreement that, was specific to target wayland games/ BOW partnership, they broke their relationship because the contract was made specifically for them not because they agreed they did anything illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also interesting to see the point of view of another company burned by GWs sudden uncalled for trade agreements.
If that's the real timeline, fair enough, I take the point. It still isn't illegal to change the terms of your trade contracts. People are free not to sign. Underhanded? Sure.
PhantomViper wrote: Article 101 is designed to prevent cartels and companies with a very big market presence from using their influence to disrupt free trade within the EU. Section e) is the part that is applicable in this case:
make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
Interesting. From what I gathered by watching the BoW video on this they mentioned that they worked with Wayland Games in their studio and were even paid by them. I think we still need to discuss the possibility that this article is not in breach of the EU law. If GW have had their lawyers look at it I don't think they would have had made such a drastic breach of law within their contracts. It would be pretty stupid if they did. They must at least have something to stand on in doing this.
In this case, the secondary obligation which Wayland had to accept was the termination of their association with BoW (or making BoW stop releasing rumours and previews of GW products).
The contract wasn't stating that couldn't do it but it was stating that GW reserves the right to not sell their products to them under such a circumstance. Of course they can't dictate to them that they are not allowed to do it.
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
The trade agreement is what changed. So the conditions of the trade agreement changed and they no longer have to supply them. It would be pretty bad if companies had no say in who they trade with.
There was a case of a rather large Cosmetics company that was trying to prevent the sales of their products through online stores claiming that they damaged their brand name (or some such, I forgot the actual reasoning for the banning), they were found in breach of article 101 and fined and had to continue supplying the internet sellers.
Can you clarrify more on this story? I would like to look more into this so I could do with some campany names of those involved.
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:
- any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,
- any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,
- any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,
which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:
(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
I wonder if section 3 here can offer insight in regards to GWs reasons for their trade agreement.
Bull0 wrote: Wayland are a small operation? Didn't they just open some huge gaming space or something? If they can't afford lawyers, that's a serious problem!
Again, where have you been the past couple of years? CHS's lawsuit is reportedly costing upward of 1 million dollars, do you think that small companies have the ability to support those types of costs on their own?
If that's the real timeline, fair enough, I take the point. It still isn't illegal to change the terms of your trade contracts. People are free not to sign. Underhanded? Sure.
What is you legal background to state that this particular contract term is legal or not under article 101 section e)? I'm genuinely curious to know.
He mentions the "I won't buy X because Y is coming out" issue, but GW does not necessarily profit from this. If X is, say, a PS4, GW does not benefit from people buying a PS4 because they don't know they need to save up money for the next Tyranid release. And they do not benefit from people buying a PS4 and then finding out they don't have any hobby money - or hobby time - to spend on Tyranids.
I would also say that the impulse buy strategy is bad for new players. As he mentioned, a new player isn't around to see the leaks, but they're also not around to buy the limited edition stuff. A strategy that means that new players cannot buy the things they want because it's sold out four days before release is not new player friendly.
Bull0 wrote: Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties.
Cutting ties does not mean that BoW and WG agree with GW. It simply means that BoW and WG assessed the situation and decided that cutting ties was the best way for them to move forward.
PhantomViper wrote: Where have you been the past couple of years? GW isn't above doing "less than legal" things to try and get their way, just look at the CHS case...
No offence here but legal matters are not always as simple as someone clearly being in the wrong while another one being clearly in the right. Sometimes it can be a difficult thing to call. The CHS episode isn't evidence that GW were trying to do something completely illegal that they were clearly not allowed to do. They would have had some sort of foot to stand on and a reasonable argument presented in court. Its just that it didn't go their way on that particular day and the court sided with Chapter House rather than GW on this particular issue. In hindsight it was an argument to do with Intellectual Property and whther Chapater House were violating that or not.
I think a lot of people are reading too much into a lot of these legal issues. All you need to realise is that it is a dispute between two companies which will get resolved in court in the end.
And have you watched the BoW video? Even getting a lawyer to look at a C&D and getting their opinion costs several hundred pounds. Do you think that a small operation like BoW or Wayland can afford to get into a legal dispute without some sort of free legal council, even if they are in the right?
Its not GWs fault that legal matters are costly. However in terms of this trade agreement, considering that it went to every one of their suppliers, if it was completely illegal then it wouldn't take much to sue them and then they would be fined. Everybody thinks that GW just writes these things into their contracts and that they are clearly and completely illegal. If this is the case then GW are opening themselves up to massive fines. I just don't believe they are that stupid.
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
Where have you been the past couple of years? GW isn't above doing "less than legal" things to try and get their way, just look at the CHS case...
And have you watched the BoW video? Even getting a lawyer to look at a C&D and getting their opinion costs several hundred pounds. Do you think that a small operation like BoW or Wayland can afford to get into a legal dispute without some sort of free legal council, even if they are in the right?
Wayland are a small operation? Didn't they just open some huge gaming space or something? If they can't afford lawyers, that's a serious problem!
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
No, the legal letters were before the contract, they tried their best to push their legal might they failed and since the legal threats did not work because there was nothing illegal, they custom made a trade agreement that, was specific to target wayland games/ BOW partnership, they broke their relationship because the contract was made specifically for them not because they agreed they did anything illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also interesting to see the point of view of another company burned by GWs sudden uncalled for trade agreements.
If that's the real timeline, fair enough, I take the point. It still isn't illegal to change the terms of your trade contracts. People are free not to sign. Underhanded? Sure.
They just might not want to spend thousands just to keep showing sneak peaks
Bull0 wrote: Wayland are a small operation? Didn't they just open some huge gaming space or something? If they can't afford lawyers, that's a serious problem!
Again, where have you been the past couple of years? CHS's lawsuit is reportedly costing upward of 1 million dollars, do you think that small companies have the ability to support those types of costs on their own?
Meaning what exactly? That GWs claim wasn't just thrown out of the court in seconds? It obviously took a long time for the court to make a decision. I think this shows that GW at least had a claim that they could make. If GWs claim was completely ridiculous then it would have been thrown out fairly early in the proceedings. Heck it probably wouldn't have even got to court in the first place.
My 2 pence worth: This is typical GW bully boy rubbish, Wayland can afford lots of Lawyers and could have fought this - however could doesn't mean should.
They'll have weighed up the value of GW turnover and profit against some morale victory against GW. if they fight it GW refuse to supply while the arguments rage on, Wayland lose lots of customers and may get compensation off GW due to loss of trade, maybe .... but enough to cover the loss and hassle... probably not.
This is the easy solution BOW are a separate company anyway so it's just easier to rent an office to list as their registered address (whether they use it or not is another matter and neither here nor there). Basically BOW and Wayland can now carry on as normal as though nothing has happened and it won't make a blind bit of difference apart from some free publicity..... and GW...... well they can jump around doing their victory dance celebrating the fact that they are ar$ehol€$
Notice here that GW actually won on some of the rulings here. Like I said legal issues like this aren't always black and white.
Took note of this bit:
CHS ordered to pay GW damages of $25,000 USD
I've yet to see anybody give Chpaterhouse any hassle for breaking the law. It looks as if GW did have some sort of claim in regards to this. Enough of a claim to be awarded damages at least anyhow.
I've yet to see anybody give Chpaterhouse any hassle for breaking the law. It looks as if GW did have some sort of claim in regards to this. Enough of a claim to be awarded damages at least anyhow.
The bit I took note of was that GW lost over 2/3rds of the claims.
Yes Chapterhouse was found to be in the wrong in some cases but GW were clearly, once again, playing the bully by suing over things like fur and roman numerals.
I've yet to see anybody give Chpaterhouse any hassle for breaking the law. It looks as if GW did have some sort of claim in regards to this. Enough of a claim to be awarded damages at least anyhow.
The bit I took note of was that GW lost over 2/3rds of the claims.
Yes Chapterhouse was found to be in the wrong in some cases but GW were clearly, once again, playing the bully by suing over things like fur and roman numerals.
So they still won a 1/3rd of the claims. So my point still stands true. Legal matters are never as easy as saying that one party is clearly 100% wrong while the other party is 100% right. They both had claims to make and they both won some and lost some. However of course everybody else is crying about poor old Chapterhouse but its only GW who come off looking like the bad guy.
I rather be sensible and believe that legal issues are never are straightforward as people think they are.
Also can you provide a source for your claim that they were suing over fur and Roman numerals? I have a feeling its probably a bit more complicated than that but I would like to read up on it first before making judgements.
Also can you provide a source for your claim that they were suing over fur and Roman numerals? I have a feeling its probably a bit more complicated than that but I would like to read up on it first before making judgements.
Can't give you details, but it wouldn't be unusual for them to try.
Other companies try it all the time.
Haagen-Dazs sued Frusen Gladje for using "vaguely scandinavian-sounding" words to name ice cream (until they found out that Frusen Gladje, unlike Haagen-Dazs is actually a proper Swedish term).
Spike Lee sued Spike TV because he thought he owns everything containing the word "Spike".
Monster Cables tried to sue Disney (yeah.. that sounds like a plan!) for using their totally unique company name in a movie called "Monsters Inc"
The thing is, once the basic costs of a lawyer or two are negligible for you as a company, or you even have a few on your payroll that need to do something, there's absolutely no disincentive to just giving it a try. The worst that can happen is you lose the case. Big deal. But if you win, you might suddenly "own" a highly generic, highly public concept.
Also can you provide a source for your claim that they were suing over fur and Roman numerals? I have a feeling its probably a bit more complicated than that but I would like to read up on it first before making judgements.
Can't give you details, but it wouldn't be unusual for them to try.
Other companies try it all the time.
Haagen-Dazs sued Frusen Gladje for using "vaguely scandinavian-sounding" words to name ice cream (until they found out that Frusen Gladje, unlike Haagen-Dazs is actually a proper Swedish term).
Spike Lee sued Spike TV because he thought he owns everything containing the word "Spike".
Monster Cables tried to sue Disney (yeah.. that sounds like a plan!) for using their totally unique company name in a movie called "Monsters Inc"
The thing is, once the basic costs of a lawyer or two are negligible for you as a company, or you even have a few on your payroll that need to do something, there's absolutely no disincentive to just giving it a try. The worst that can happen is you lose the case. Big deal. But if you win, you might suddenly "own" a highly generic, highly public concept.
Thats why I wanted to read more into it before deciding. So are we all in agreement here? Do we stop buying Haagen-Dazs ice cream for being big bullies?
PhantomViper wrote: Where have you been the past couple of years? GW isn't above doing "less than legal" things to try and get their way, just look at the CHS case...
No offence here but legal matters are not always as simple as someone clearly being in the wrong while another one being clearly in the right. Sometimes it can be a difficult thing to call. The CHS episode isn't evidence that GW were trying to do something completely illegal that they were clearly not allowed to do. They would have had some sort of foot to stand on and a reasonable argument presented in court. Its just that it didn't go their way on that particular day and the court sided with Chapter House rather than GW on this particular issue. In hindsight it was an argument to do with Intellectual Property and whther Chapater House were violating that or not.
I think a lot of people are reading too much into a lot of these legal issues. All you need to realise is that it is a dispute between two companies which will get resolved in court in the end.
I'm not saying that GW is clearly in the wrong in the BoW's issue or that they are in the right, I'm not a lawyer to be able to determine that. What I am saying is that it appears that GW is in the wrong, the problem is that to find that out it would take a whole bucket load of money and probably several years and I really doubt that Wayland is willing to go to all that trouble / expense when a simple solution like the one that they took is available...
And when I'm talking about the CHS case, I'm not talking about the verdict or the initial lawsuit, I'm talking about their behaviour during the case itself, i.e. lying to a Federal judge, lying to the Patents Office, trying to get artists to sign contracts after the fact due to "lost paperwork" and all that wonderful behaviour that GW used to try and win the case...
And have you watched the BoW video? Even getting a lawyer to look at a C&D and getting their opinion costs several hundred pounds. Do you think that a small operation like BoW or Wayland can afford to get into a legal dispute without some sort of free legal council, even if they are in the right?
Its not GWs fault that legal matters are costly. However in terms of this trade agreement, considering that it went to every one of their suppliers, if it was completely illegal then it wouldn't take much to sue them and then they would be fined. Everybody thinks that GW just writes these things into their contracts and that they are clearly and completely illegal. If this is the case then GW are opening themselves up to massive fines. I just don't believe they are that stupid.
No, its not GWs fault that legal matters are this costly, but that doesn't mean that they aren't taking advantage of those costs to bully smaller companies into doing what they wan't. Because it doesn't matter if GW are right or wrong when just the process of fighting them in the courts will bankrupt smaller companies!
I've yet to see anybody give Chpaterhouse any hassle for breaking the law. It looks as if GW did have some sort of claim in regards to this. Enough of a claim to be awarded damages at least anyhow.
Chapterhouse has taken tons of gak for their chosen business model, and if you haven't seen that you are actively trying not to. Yes, they paid a relatively small amount in damages. Especially small when compared to the damages sought by GW.
The bit I took note of was that GW lost over 2/3rds of the claims.
Yes Chapterhouse was found to be in the wrong in some cases but GW were clearly, once again, playing the bully by suing over things like fur and roman numerals.
So they still won a 1/3rd of the claims. So my point still stands true. Legal matters are never as easy as saying that one party is clearly 100% wrong while the other party is 100% right. They both had claims to make and they both won some and lost some. However of course everybody else is crying about poor old Chapterhouse but its only GW who come off looking like the bad guy.
I rather be sensible and believe that legal issues are never are straightforward as people think they are.
Also can you provide a source for your claim that they were suing over fur and Roman numerals? I have a feeling its probably a bit more complicated than that but I would like to read up on it first before making judgements.
I'm not going to find the specific post, but the list of claims by GW is in the Chapterhouse thread in the Discussion sub-forum (via a link to the pdf court documents). It is exactly as uncomplicated as was suggested. They definitely tried for some extremely non-specific items.
Oh, and they won 1/3 of the items that actually made it to trial, not 1/3 of the items that they brought suit for. Many were dismissed, with prejudice, before this even made it in front of a jury.
Did you read the rest of the pathetically brief BoLS piece even? (Seriously, read through the thread here; lots of good, detailed information, and commentary from people who know their gak about law.) GW lost on the claim of infringement on the shape of their Space Marine shoulder pads for crying out loud. Also, seems that the former GW head in-house counsel is looking for work all of a sudden...
Legal issues are rarely black and white, and IP law is some of the muddiest water around. That doesn't make what GW pulled with Chapterhouse, the "Spots the Space Marine" author, or what hey are trying to pull with their new trade terms any less bs. Remember kids, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. A bully is a bully, whether on the playground or in the courtroom.
There seems to be some heavy-duty water carrying going on here...
Thats why I wanted to read more into it before deciding. So are we all in agreement here? Do we stop buying Haagen-Dazs ice cream for being big bullies?
If we have the ability to think beyond ourselves and see the bigger picture, then yes. With regard to GW, anyway.
Zweischneid listed some examples of ridiculous lawsuits, sure. But unless there is a pattern of repeated similar behavior from those companies, then I'm not sure it counts as bullying. Just stupidity.
PhantomViper wrote: I'm not saying that GW is clearly in the wrong in the BoW's issue or that they are in the right, I'm not a lawyer to be able to determine that. What I am saying is that it appears that GW is in the wrong, the problem is that to find that out it would take a whole bucket load of money and probably several years and I really doubt that Wayland is willing to go to all that trouble / expense when a simple solution like the one that they took is available...
I agree they took the simple solution. Whther or not GW had a good claim or not in their contracts is entirely up to the law and I don't think we're going to see the outcome to that.
And when I'm talking about the CHS case, I'm not talking about the verdict or the initial lawsuit, I'm talking about their behaviour during the case itself, i.e. lying to a Federal judge, lying to the Patents Office, trying to get artists to sign contracts after the fact due to "lost paperwork" and all that wonderful behaviour that GW used to try and win the case...
Oooohhhhh, gimme some info on that. I didn't know about this.
No, its not GWs fault that legal matters are this costly, but that doesn't mean that they aren't taking advantage of those costs to bully smaller companies into doing what they wan't. Because it doesn't matter if GW are right or wrong when just the process of fighting them in the courts will bankrupt smaller companies!
Yes but obviously the assumption here is that they are in the wrong for doing it when perhaps they are not and they may have a claim. In my train of thought I see this as an issue that a case can be made either way. I do believe that each side will have a reasonable defence for what they want to claim. Its upto a court to decide what the income would be. Wayland Games & BoW will probably make a defence in their side that neither of them are technically the same company despite their affiliation and respond that making news on leaks isn't illegal. GW will probably claim that such leaks are a source of damage to their Intellectual Property and will want to trade with companies that do not do this and so have included a contractual agreement stating this.
And when I'm talking about the CHS case, I'm not talking about the verdict or the initial lawsuit, I'm talking about their behaviour during the case itself, i.e. lying to a Federal judge, lying to the Patents Office, trying to get artists to sign contracts after the fact due to "lost paperwork" and all that wonderful behaviour that GW used to try and win the case...
Oooohhhhh, gimme some info on that. I didn't know about this.
And when I'm talking about the CHS case, I'm not talking about the verdict or the initial lawsuit, I'm talking about their behaviour during the case itself, i.e. lying to a Federal judge, lying to the Patents Office, trying to get artists to sign contracts after the fact due to "lost paperwork" and all that wonderful behaviour that GW used to try and win the case...
Oooohhhhh, gimme some info on that. I didn't know about this.
Me too!
Pretty much everything from or about the trial was posted,and discussed here on Dakka in this thread.
Also can you provide a source for your claim that they were suing over fur and Roman numerals? I have a feeling its probably a bit more complicated than that but I would like to read up on it first before making judgements.
Can't give you details, but it wouldn't be unusual for them to try.
Other companies try it all the time.
Haagen-Dazs sued Frusen Gladje for using "vaguely scandinavian-sounding" words to name ice cream (until they found out that Frusen Gladje, unlike Haagen-Dazs is actually a proper Swedish term).
Spike Lee sued Spike TV because he thought he owns everything containing the word "Spike".
Monster Cables tried to sue Disney (yeah.. that sounds like a plan!) for using their totally unique company name in a movie called "Monsters Inc"
The thing is, once the basic costs of a lawyer or two are negligible for you as a company, or you even have a few on your payroll that need to do something, there's absolutely no disincentive to just giving it a try. The worst that can happen is you lose the case. Big deal. But if you win, you might suddenly "own" a highly generic, highly public concept.
So what you're saying is you can't cite a source for your claim that GW sued chapterhouse for roman numerals and fur
188 pages of quite interesting behavior from GW, if you have never read this thread, then commenting on CHS case and what was won or lost and were GW was right or not is not really good.
I think attempting to bully someone out of a discussion because they haven't read a 200-page thread that's tangentially related is "not really good" too. Funny that. I dabbled at the time but I'm not about to go poring through it to back up something someone else said. I'm not the one that brought up CHS, and I haven't made any pronouncements about it or the judgements either way.
Chapterhouse has taken tons of gak for their chosen business model, and if you haven't seen that you are actively trying not to. Yes, they paid a relatively small amount in damages. Especially small when compared to the damages sought by GW.
I meant specifically within this thread. If some people give CH hassle for what they do then fine.
I'm not going to find the specific post, but the list of claims by GW is in the Chapterhouse thread in the Discussion sub-forum (via a link to the pdf court documents). It is exactly as uncomplicated as was suggested. They definitely tried for some extremely non-specific items.
Oh, and they won 1/3 of the items that actually made it to trial, not 1/3 of the items that they brought suit for. Many were dismissed, with prejudice, before this even made it in front of a jury.
It would be good to see some of it. Were the lawyers having a good go were they? Seems like lawyers are trying to pull crap like this off.
Did you read the rest of the pathetically brief BoLS piece even? (Seriously, read through the thread here; lots of good, detailed information, and commentary from people who know their gak about law.) GW lost on the claim of infringement on the shape of their Space Marine shoulder pads for crying out loud. Also, seems that the former GW head in-house counsel is looking for work all of a sudden...
I've not read the comments no. Did they say why the former head in-house counsel was looking for work? Is it a case of GW letting him go because he lost parts of the case or was it GW letting him go because of the case he put forward to begin with?
Legal issues are rarely black and white, and IP law is some of the muddiest water around. That doesn't make what GW pulled with Chapterhouse, the "Spots the Space Marine" author, or what hey are trying to pull with their new trade terms any less bs. Remember kids, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. A bully is a bully, whether on the playground or in the courtroom.
There seems to be some heavy-duty water carrying going on here...
I agree that the issue with spots the space marine was stupid. When I was looking for it I was expecting something that perhaps could be claimed copyright but when I found the book the front cover had nothing to do with power armoured marines. It was a completely different type of space marine and I don't think GW can claim copyright to the term since they didn't originally come up with the term. However it would be inteeresting to see if the term is copyrighted and who holds it.
If we have the ability to think beyond ourselves and see the bigger picture, then yes. With regard to GW, anyway.
Zweischneid listed some examples of ridiculous lawsuits, sure. But unless there is a pattern of repeated similar behavior from those companies, then I'm not sure it counts as bullying. Just stupidity.
I guess we'll see what GW gets up to in future. I will admit that I'm not impressed with some of their antics. If they continue this train of thought then I think one day they will end up on the losing side of a court battle made against them. Something like the makers of the Alien franchise suing them for using the term Space Marine.
188 pages of quite interesting behavior from GW, if you have never read this thread, then commenting on CHS case and what was won or lost and were GW was right or not is not really good.
I'm sorry but its not that interesting, especially "read nearly 200 pages of mostly garbage because I dont want to type a few lines) :(
Chapterhouse has taken tons of gak for their chosen business model, and if you haven't seen that you are actively trying not to. Yes, they paid a relatively small amount in damages. Especially small when compared to the damages sought by GW.
I meant specifically within this thread. If some people give CH hassle for what they do then fine.
Your statement originally struck me as an absolute one. Limiting it to this thread just makes it look like you are trying to dodge conceding a point though.
DarthOvious wrote:
I'm not going to find the specific post, but the list of claims by GW is in the Chapterhouse thread in the Discussion sub-forum (via a link to the pdf court documents). It is exactly as uncomplicated as was suggested. They definitely tried for some extremely non-specific items.
Oh, and they won 1/3 of the items that actually made it to trial, not 1/3 of the items that they brought suit for. Many were dismissed, with prejudice, before this even made it in front of a jury.
It would be good to see some of it. Were the lawyers having a good go were they? Seems like lawyers are trying to pull crap like this off.
It is extremely interesting (and eye-opening). There are transcripts, evidentiary filings, and rulings all linked in the thread here on Dakka. And they are spread out, so not easy to find or point to. But the entire thread is worth reading.
DarthOvious wrote:
Did you read the rest of the pathetically brief BoLS piece even? (Seriously, read through the thread here; lots of good, detailed information, and commentary from people who know their gak about law.) GW lost on the claim of infringement on the shape of their Space Marine shoulder pads for crying out loud. Also, seems that the former GW head in-house counsel is looking for work all of a sudden...
I've not read the comments no. Did they say why the former head in-house counsel was looking for work? Is it a case of GW letting him go because he lost parts of the case or was it GW letting him go because of the case he put forward to begin with?
Well, she will likely never come out and say for sure whether she was fired, asked to resign, or voluntarily quit, so we will always be in the dark about that. And we will never know whether it was her performance during the trial, her setup for it, or some combination thereof. We do know via her Linkedin profile that she is looking for work.
DarthOvious wrote:
Legal issues are rarely black and white, and IP law is some of the muddiest water around. That doesn't make what GW pulled with Chapterhouse, the "Spots the Space Marine" author, or what hey are trying to pull with their new trade terms any less bs. Remember kids, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. A bully is a bully, whether on the playground or in the courtroom.
There seems to be some heavy-duty water carrying going on here...
I agree that the issue with spots the space marine was stupid. When I was looking for it I was expecting something that perhaps could be claimed copyright but when I found the book the front cover had nothing to do with power armoured marines. It was a completely different type of space marine and I don't think GW can claim copyright to the term since they didn't originally come up with the term. However it would be inteeresting to see if the term is copyrighted and who holds it.
I don't believe that the original use of the term would be protected anymore. IIRC, it was used first in the 30's. This, also was discussed in the Chapterhouse thread though. (Seeing a theme? )
DarthOvious wrote:
If we have the ability to think beyond ourselves and see the bigger picture, then yes. With regard to GW, anyway.
Zweischneid listed some examples of ridiculous lawsuits, sure. But unless there is a pattern of repeated similar behavior from those companies, then I'm not sure it counts as bullying. Just stupidity.
I guess we'll see what GW gets up to in future. I will admit that I'm not impressed with some of their antics. If they continue this train of thought then I think one day they will end up on the losing side of a court battle made against them. Something like the makers of the Alien franchise suing them for using the term Space Marine.
We don't really need to see what they do in the future. The pattern of bad behaviour is already in the historical record.
It would be entertaining for some other, larger, companies whose work "inspired" GW in the past to take an interest in them, for sure. Come to think of it, there is a large computer games company (EA, I think) who is using designs that seem heavily "inspired" by GW ones. Wonder why they haven't been sued yet?...
Ok, here it goes in broad strokes (just because I don't have much to do at work):
Lying to a Federal Judge: I don't remember if it was just before the trial started or before the suit was filled, but GW tried to copyright the SM shoulder pads with the Copyright Office, to which the Copyright Office replied: NOOOOPE, that is too generic a shape.
They hid this information from the Judge and from CHS's defence counsel and when the Judge, not knowing that the claim had already been denied by the Copyright Office, admitted GW's claim of the shoulder pads copyright to trial, GW went back to the Copyright Office and said: look here, a Federal Judge says that we can copyright this!
CHS's defence counsel found out about this and brought it to the Judge and that is why we know that that happened.
Lying to their artists: When as part of the pre-trial procedures GW had to prove that they indeed had the rights to several of the claims that they... claimed, they found out that they had none of the paperwork to prove it, which meant that all those pieces really belonged to the original artists that had created them. Undaunted by this, they proceeded to contact those artists and to ask them to sign over the rights because they had lost all of their paperwork from 30 years ago.
We have statements from some of the artists that say that that paperwork never actually existed and that they never waived their rights to their artwork in the first place (and AFAIK they even testified about it in court ).
That is some of what happened, if you wan't more details, you'll really have to read through the thread in question.
The problem is its not a few lines, its quite more complicated than just saying this happened and its quite a bit off topic for here, you can filter the thread and read the posts of actual layers in the CHS thread like weeble1000 and have a good commentary.
The really short description is GW went in all guns blazing with sole interest in killing CHS, not getting compensated, not claiming damages, but killing it, their claims were massive and far reaching including copyright things to sculls, halberds, roman numericals and even that they create everything in isolation without any outside inspiration.
They delayed the possess in every way possible, even lying to the judge and the patent office (and been caught by the oppositions investigation) and when they were called to prove they own the stuff they claimed they do, it was discovered they owned very little, most artists did not give them rights to their artwork just first publication (and we know how much they recycle their artwork) and one at least was never payed for his work, despite that, GW tried to make them sign contracts post trial to give them all rights, most send them away, their excuse to the court was they somehow lost the original contracts.
its a really short rough summary that does not do justice to the case.
188 pages of quite interesting behavior from GW, if you have never read this thread, then commenting on CHS case and what was won or lost and were GW was right or not is not really good.
I'm sorry but its not that interesting, especially "read nearly 200 pages of mostly garbage because I dont want to type a few lines) :(
I'm sure PS can defend himself, but I feel the need to say: It is hardly a case of "typing a few lines". There is so much stuff in that thread that it is effectively impossible to point to any one post as the thing you were looking for.
I could just as easily say that you just don't want to search a few pages...
SickSix wrote: GW not only tried to claim ownership of Roman numerals bit also basic geometric shapes (tactical arrows etc. )
I remember reading one part of the case transcript though where GW's attempted claim was explained as "Roman numerals + tactical arrow/ assault arrows/devastator chevron+shoulderpad = protectable item" rather than the individual elements themselves.
Something about if you throw enough common unprotectable items into a design and you ultimately end up with something that you can attempt to copyright/trademark/protect..
Due to the absolute mass of paperwork generated, I don't expect I could find that actual statement again though.
SickSix wrote: GW not only tried to claim ownership of Roman numerals bit also basic geometric shapes (tactical arrows etc. )
I remember reading one part of the case transcript though where GW's attempted claim was explained as "Roman numerals + tactical arrow/ assault arrows/devastator chevron+shoulderpad = protectable item" rather than the individual elements themselves.
Something about if you throw enough common unprotectable items into a design and you ultimately end up with something that you can attempt to copyright/trademark/protect..
Due to the absolute mass of paperwork generated, I don't expect I could find that actual statement again though.
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
That's a big if and a huge assumption that everybody here mentioning it is really lying, you can of course go like everybody else follow the trial read the transcripts and form your won opinion, see the charts and the notes on what they claimed it was their, read the experts reports and the discussion by forum members there, inducing actual layers.
Or you can assume everybody here is purposefully lie.
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
That's a big if and a huge assumption that everybody here mentioning it is really lying, you can of course go like everybody else follow the trial read the transcripts and form your won opinion, see the charts and the notes on what they claimed it was their, read the experts reports and the discussion by forum members there, inducing actual layers.
Or you can assume everybody here is purposefully lie.
Well I've got one group of people telling me that they tried to sue over the use of "roman numerals and fur", and I've got one person telling me what seems like a much more likely thing - that they were suing over the combination of elements. Somebody's telling porkies. Again, you're asking me to stop commenting and go read a 200-page thread instead, because the fact that I've noticed there are 2 conflicting reports on this isn't good enough.
Honestly I think this thread got badly derailed as soon as you brought the CHS lawsuit into it. Like it wasn't convincing enough that what GW did re: BoW and WG was evil, so you had to say "but these other things they did were evil too". HOWEVER, when it comes to discussing those other things, you're telling us we have to go educate ourselves in another thread and that it isn't on you to explain and prove that what they did was bad. How about no? If you're bringing a tangentially related point into this, the burden's on you to make your own point and to back it up when asked.
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
Taken from the CHS Trial verdict (just the objects in question):
The following 67 products of defendant are non-infringing of plaintiff’s copyrights (product numbers refer to numbering in Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits 1020 and 1021):
First squad or I Shoulder pad (product 53);
V Power shoulder pads (products 151-152);
SickSix wrote: GW not only tried to claim ownership of Roman numerals bit also basic geometric shapes (tactical arrows etc. )
I remember reading one part of the case transcript though where GW's attempted claim was explained as "Roman numerals + tactical arrow/ assault arrows/devastator chevron+shoulderpad = protectable item" rather than the individual elements themselves.
Something about if you throw enough common unprotectable items into a design and you ultimately end up with something that you can attempt to copyright/trademark/protect..
Due to the absolute mass of paperwork generated, I don't expect I could find that actual statement again though.
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
There is so much paperwork kicking around about the case though that I can't deny roman numerals were claimed in isolation at some point. I can White Knight with the best of them but at present my armour is unpolished and my faithful charger Albino is asleep in the stable.
And Bull0, no-one is necesarily telling porkies. I know I certainly didn't read all the transcripts.
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
Taken from the CHS Trial verdict (just the objects in question):
The following 67 products of defendant are non-infringing of plaintiff’s copyrights (product numbers refer to numbering in Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits 1020 and 1021):
First squad or I Shoulder pad (product 53); V Power shoulder pads (products 151-152);
Right so that's a curved shoulder pad with an I or a V on it. Is that the same as "claiming ownership of roman numerals"? Message control is just *so* important on this, if you say that GW "tried to copyright roman numerals" when you mean GW "tried to copyright the curved shoulderpad shape they use with a roman numeral on it" you're being very misleading, imo. I'd even be happy enough to say that claiming ownership of a curved shoulderpad with a roman numeral on it is overreaching and they shouldn't have done that, that's the funny thing, but you're doing nothing less than sabotaging the argument if you misrepresent it as claiming ownership of a roman numeral.
Pg 170 in the CHS thread is the point where the trial concludes,
There is a post by czakk (who I believe is a practicing lawyer) half way down pg 178 which has the ruling documents attached.
3(a) In just the same way that Dr. Grindley affirmatively admitted there were no known
limits on the numbers of ways one could design shoulder pads or other products and that there was
no basis to find any of the design elements at issue standard or indispensible in any relevant field,
Chapterhouse’s other expert, Mr. Brewster conceded that, for each of the elements he identified as
having been used previously (such as chevrons, Roman numeral, arrows or skulls), there was
nothing standard in the usage of such symbols that would compel Chapterhouse to use those
symbols, much less the specific combinations of elements Games Workshop used. There is, thus,
no basis to conclude any of the images he identified are relevant to any issue in the case and do not
begin to establish that anything about the specific designs Games Workshop is claiming in this case
are in any respect standard or indispensible.
This basically means that because there were no known limits on how symbols can be combined and placed on a shoulder pad (which itself was found too generic) then the is no standard that GW can claim copyright on. With nothing to claim copyright on i.e. this combination of symbols on a shoulder pad is ours, then CHS was found not in breach of copyright.
Again, perfectly happy with that. I said above that I thought trying to claim ownership of the combination of curved shoulder pad and numeral was dodgy and wrong. It still looks as though "Games Workshop tried to claim ownership of roman numerals and fur" as a statement is factually incorrect, though...
You are again assuming too much, not once I said you you cannot post, but I did specifically state that the CHS case is a huge behemoth that one can really grasp what happened and what was claimed there if he or she has followed it and read it, all I mentioned from CHS case is GW is known to use underhand tactics to spin their version of events and outrageous claims on things they own, two separate examples can easily be identified in the fact they hide from the judge and the opposition that the patent office had rejected their application to patent the shape of the shoulderpad and then when the judge made a summary judgement of the shoulderpad been patendable (without knowledge of the patent office decision), they tried to force the patent office to reconsider its decision all this without saying anything to the judge or the opposition, while sworn to produce all evidence, when they were caught out by the oppositions independent search they tried to spin it as nothing happened.
Their famous claim of owning the word space marine and how well it went for them is self explanatory.
I must dig for it but there was a huge list of what they claimed without associating it to anything the list included sculls, halberds and Latin numerical.
As a preliminary matter, Chapterhouse contends that GW “abandoned” a number
of its trademark infringement claims through the deposition testimony of Jones, GW’s
Head of Legal, Licensing and Strategic Projects. Specifically, Chapterhouse contends
that via his testimony Jones, acting on behalf of GW, abandoned the company’s claim
to trademark infringement for the following twelve marks: (1) wings, (2) skulls, (3)
“Roman numerals (combined with) arrows,” (4) Tau – oval vents,” (5) plasma, (6)
tactical, (7) halberd, (8) broadswords, (9) overlapping/banded armor, (10) “Tau –
geometric gloves,” (11) wolf fur, and (12) snakes. Def.’s Stat. of Material Facts ¶ 57.
GW contends that Chapterhouse is taking Jones’s testimony out of context. It
argues that when Jones said that GW is “not claiming” a trademark in the twelve items
above, he was only clarifying that GW did not claim protection of “wings” or “snakes”
generally as trademarks, but rather that the “unique association[s]” of creatively styled
wings or snakes (including those bearing the Warhammer 40,000 logo) are unique
trademarks.
So the unique association they wanted was these symbols on a space marine shoulder pad, a physical item deemed too generic to copyright, a patent that got thrown out and they attempted to lie about.
As a preliminary matter, Chapterhouse contends that GW “abandoned” a number
of its trademark infringement claims through the deposition testimony of Jones, GW’s
Head of Legal, Licensing and Strategic Projects. Specifically, Chapterhouse contends
that via his testimony Jones, acting on behalf of GW, abandoned the company’s claim
to trademark infringement for the following twelve marks: (1) wings, (2) skulls, (3)
“Roman numerals (combined with) arrows,” (4) Tau – oval vents,” (5) plasma, (6)
tactical, (7) halberd, (8) broadswords, (9) overlapping/banded armor, (10) “Tau –
geometric gloves,” (11) wolf fur, and (12) snakes. Def.’s Stat. of Material Facts ¶ 57.
GW contends that Chapterhouse is taking Jones’s testimony out of context. It
argues that when Jones said that GW is “not claiming” a trademark in the twelve items
above, he was only clarifying that GW did not claim protection of “wings” or “snakes”
generally as trademarks, but rather that the “unique association[s]” of creatively styled
wings or snakes (including those bearing the Warhammer 40,000 logo) are unique
trademarks.
So the unique association they wanted was these symbols on a space marine shoulder pad, a physical item deemed too generic to copyright, a patent that got thrown out and they attempted to lie about.
Bull0 wrote:Again, perfectly happy with that. I said above that I thought trying to claim ownership of the combination of curved shoulder pad and numeral was dodgy and wrong. It still looks as though "Games Workshop tried to claim ownership of roman numerals and fur" as a statement is factually incorrect, though...
I'm just going to bring these two together.
It does appear that there is a correlation between those taking a more generous view of GWs actions and those that aren't so well informed on some of their historical shenanigans.
Let's not forget they also shut down (or tried to) one studios miniature that they planned to give away at Salute for free, because it resembled a drawing of something in one of their books that doesn't exist as a miniature or as rules earlier in the year too.
Games Workshop also has a large number of well-known unregistered trade
marks (including names of armies, Chapters, and other products) including without limitation:
Adeptus Mechanicus, Assault, Alpha Legion, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Blood Ravens,
Cadian, Carnifex, Chaos Space Marines, Chaplain, Chimera, Crimson Fists, Dark Angel, Death
Case: 1:10-cv-08103 Document #: 147 Filed: 01/19/12 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:15404847-7177-8316
9
Watch, Devastator, Dreadnought, Drop Pod, Eldar, Elder Farseer, Eldar Jetbike, Eldar Warlock,
Eldar Seer Council, Empire, Exorcist, Flesh Tearers, Gene Stealer, Grenade Launcher, Halberd,
Heavy bolter, Heresy Armour, Hellhound, High Elf, Hive Tyrant, Horus Heresy, Howling
Banshee, Imperial Fists, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, Iron Hands, Jetbike, Jump Pack, Land
Raider, Land Speeder, Legion of the Damned, Librarian, Lightning Claw, Melta, Mk II Armour,
Mk V Armour, Plasma, Predator, Rhino, Salamander, Scorpion, Soul Drinker, Space Wolves,
Stormraven, Storm Shield, Tactical, Techmarine, Termagants, Terminator, Thousand Sons,
Thunder Hammer, Tyrant, Tyranid Warrior.
Many of the symbols associated with the characters and armies of the
WARHAMMER 40,000 universe, as well as the accessories for these characters and armies,
have also become well-known and immediately recognizable to the many fans of the game as
used on and in connection with the respective characters, including without limitation: skulls,
Wings (eagle wings, angel wings), Lions, Griffon, Triptychs, Broadswords, Skull with horns,
Storm bolter (gun) Sawblade with blood-drop, Clenched fist in a gauntlet, Snakes, Flaming
skulls, Flaming chalice, Salamander, Dragon/salamander scales pattern, Tau Symbol, Tau - Oval
vents, Tau - X marking on power/ammo packs, Tau – circle with diagonal line through it, Tau –
geometric grooves, Roman numerals (combined with) arrows, X crosses and inverted V, Cog,
Iron hands icon – gauntleted left hand shown palm downwards, Overlapping/banded armour,
Wolf fur, Wolf skulls, Wolf tails, Raven wings with blood drop in centre, I symbol (for
Inquisition), Scarab beetles, Spirit stones, Eldar iconography/symbols (seer icons etc), Eldar -
Spirit Stones, Eldar – decorative gems on weapons.
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
That's a big if and a huge assumption that everybody here mentioning it is really lying, you can of course go like everybody else follow the trial read the transcripts and form your won opinion, see the charts and the notes on what they claimed it was their, read the experts reports and the discussion by forum members there, inducing actual layers.
Or you can assume everybody here is purposefully lie.
Considering what happens any and every time Matt Ward is rumored to be writing an upcoming book?
Yeah. It's not unfair to assume that people purposefully lie where GW is involved.
Sorry, I must be being dense here, I still don't see how "attempting to copyright roman numerals on a space marine shoulderpad" and "attempting to copyright roman numerals" are the same thing. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I honestly don't get it.
And I know that GW are deep in the dark arts - I don't see what difference that makes to this specific point
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
That's a big if and a huge assumption that everybody here mentioning it is really lying, you can of course go like everybody else follow the trial read the transcripts and form your won opinion, see the charts and the notes on what they claimed it was their, read the experts reports and the discussion by forum members there, inducing actual layers.
Or you can assume everybody here is purposefully lie.
Considering what happens any and every time Matt Ward is rumored to be writing an upcoming book?
Yeah. It's not unfair to assume that people purposefully lie where GW is involved.
I seriously don't know where to start with that statement.
How about it is naive, patronising, irrelevant and insulting?
Bull0 wrote: Sorry, I must be being dense here, I still don't see how "attempting to copyright roman numerals on a space marine shoulderpad" and "attempting to copyright roman numerals" are the same thing. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I honestly don't get it.
Roman numerals (combined with) arrows, X crosses and inverted V
Right or wrong, they still aren't claiming that they own roman numerals, but roman numerals with something else (either the pad, or with the shapes that make up tactical markings...) Witch is what Bull0 is talking about.
This copyright talk is about as off-topic as you can get, and copyright and trademark law doesn't really have anything to do with requiring Wayland Games to abide by the terms of a contract that they decided to sign.
And a general pattern of using their superior resources to engage in frivolous legal proceedings. The "virtue" of this approach is that GW persistently chooses to pursue this strategy against entities that lack the legal resources to fight back. Or, in the words of Cory Doctorow;
Games Workshop's strategy is to make "space marine" less generic by launching high profile, bullying attacks on everyone who uses it, so that there will come a day when people hearing the phrase immediately conclude that it must be related to Games Workshop, because everyone know what colossal dicks they are whenever anyone else uses the phrase
In the end this thread has been derailed quite a few times when people focus on details and call posters to defend themselves without really bringing anything solid forward except their opinion.
The crux of the problem is what I said 3 pages ago.
GW is using its bulk to threaten or eliminate whoever does something they do not like or perceive as a threat, regardless of its legality or ethical considerations, there are ample of examples for this in the past and the trend, BOW case been the latest, only gets worse.
If people want to defend this behavior and believe its good for anybody that is not GW, good for them, for me and others its at least worrisome and unhealthy for the industry.
All true; I just think if we're going to crucify them, we should stick to the things they actually did, rather than make up new things. All in favour?
*edit* I said "All true" before I saw PS' post; obviously I don't agree that calling someone out on a factually incorrect statement is "derailing" and also don't agree that by questioning individual points or actions we're somehow defending GW's entire oppressive campaign (particularly when I've repeatedly said that I don't defend them on any of that). But hey, whatever works.
d-usa wrote: This copyright talk is about as off-topic as you can get, and copyright and trademark law doesn't really have anything to do with requiring Wayland Games to abide by the terms of a contract that they decided to change just because an associate of Wayland was doing something that GW did not approve.
Kanluwen wrote: How is that "worrisome and unhealthy for the industry"?
Do you think that if the Infinity Art Book had been leaked by the publisher that CB would have been happy?
How is there a comparison between leaks of artwork from a book that you would only buy for the pictures and some early pics of minis?
If Wayland or BoW were giving the minis away early (or the 3D files perhaps) you'd have a more valid comparison.
What if the early pics of the minis came from a WD that wasn't officially on sale yet? After all, if you buy WD nowadays, its only for the pictures as there isn't much worth reading in it.
Kanluwen wrote: How is that "worrisome and unhealthy for the industry"?
Do you think that if the Infinity Art Book had been leaked by the publisher that CB would have been happy?
How is there a comparison between leaks of artwork from a book that you would only buy for the pictures and some early pics of minis?
If Wayland or BoW were giving the minis away early (or the 3D files perhaps) you'd have a more valid comparison.
What if the early pics of the minis came from a WD that wasn't officially on sale yet? After all, if you buy WD nowadays, its only for the pictures as there isn't much worth reading in it.
It would serve the same purpose. Much like if I uploaded pages from the Ikea catalogue on to a home furnishing blog.
Kanluwen wrote: How is that "worrisome and unhealthy for the industry"?
Do you think that if the Infinity Art Book had been leaked by the publisher that CB would have been happy?
How is there a comparison between leaks of artwork from a book that you would only buy for the pictures and some early pics of minis?
If Wayland or BoW were giving the minis away early (or the 3D files perhaps) you'd have a more valid comparison.
What if the early pics of the minis came from a WD that wasn't officially on sale yet? After all, if you buy WD nowadays, its only for the pictures as there isn't much worth reading in it.
It would serve the same purpose. Much like if I uploaded pages from the Ikea catalogue on to a home furnishing blog.
If your home furnishing blog has an ad for a website where I can buy the Ikea products at a discount... then we're back on topic. Good work everybody!
I get that point Azreal13 but if "Magazine Publisher" knows that "Magazine Seller A" is passing the mag on three days before the selling date to his mate, who then scans pages and puts them on the internet then "Magazine Publisher" might want to impose extra terms on "Seller A" to prevent that.
What if the entire worrying point I try to raise is not about the leaks, but the way they decided to deal with them.
What is worrisome? its the fact GW tries to bully into submission or extinction everybody significantly smaller than them, which is the entire industry, based on them doing something they do not like not on a legal basis.
The fact they changed the distributors contracts just to stop BOW because their legal attempts failed shows the extend they are willing to go and how unethical they can become.
And Yes Kanluwen CB had leaks in the past some quite more significant than seen pages from the artbook, they did not hunt down to blogs that posted or reposted the leaks, nor the individuals that brought them into the light.
They did their internal security found who leaked them and stopped him.
If GW is hellbent to stop leaking, they can do their internal security and stop it, do they do that? no they legally threat forums, blogs and companies and when they fail they use their contracts to enforce their will.
Kanluwen wrote: How is that "worrisome and unhealthy for the industry"?
Do you think that if the Infinity Art Book had been leaked by the publisher that CB would have been happy?
How is there a comparison between leaks of artwork from a book that you would only buy for the pictures and some early pics of minis?
If Wayland or BoW were giving the minis away early (or the 3D files perhaps) you'd have a more valid comparison.
What if the early pics of the minis came from a WD that wasn't officially on sale yet? After all, if you buy WD nowadays, its only for the pictures as there isn't much worth reading in it.
It would serve the same purpose. Much like if I uploaded pages from the Ikea catalogue on to a home furnishing blog.
If your home furnishing blog has an ad for a website where I can buy the Ikea products at a discount... then we're back on topic. Good work everybody!
So what you're saying is, if the blog, regardless of its subject matter, carries advertising for a retailer that is offering the product which must have been purchased from one source and one source only at a discount, this is somehow a bad thing?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, other than GW are trying to be greedy by forcing people to buy from them directly to enhance their margin?
Its irrelevant anyway, as both Wayland and BoW have flatly denied there was any information sharing going on anyway.
PsychoticStorm wrote: What if the entire worrying point I try to raise is not about the leaks, but the way they decided to deal with them.
What is worrisome? its the fact GW tries to bully into submission or extinction everybody significantly smaller than them, which is the entire industry, based on them doing something they do not like not on a legal basis.
The fact they changed the distributors contracts just to stop BOW because their legal attempts failed shows the extend they are willing to go and how unethical they can become.
And Yes Kanluwen CB had leaks in the past some quite more significant than seen pages from the artbook, they did not hunt down to blogs that posted or reposted the leaks, nor the individuals that brought them into the light.
They did their internal security found who leaked them and stopped him.
If GW is hellbent to stop leaking, they can do their internal security and stop it, do they do that? no they legally threat forums, blogs and companies and when they fail they use their contracts to enforce their will.
Yes that IS worrisome.
And you just made my point for me.
The leaks that we have been seeing from GW are not coming from someone within GW. Internal security checks do nothing to stop an external source--in this case, the leaks have been coming from whoever they have publishing White Dwarf.
If someone from whatever publisher that CB had used to do the Art Book leaked the material to a blog then they would have gone after them.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, other than GW are trying to be greedy by forcing people to buy from them directly to enhance their margin?
Just to be clear, yeah, I think that's exactly what they're trying to do. Although they still won't be "forced" to, but they're supposedly more likely to buy direct from GW if they get the news about the release from GW too. They would be forced to in the eventuality that 3rd parties / trade accounts drainstop and cease to be a thing (which might be GW's endgame re: all this).
I want to reiterate that although I think this is happening and can see why they could be doing it from a business sense I don't think it's "nice" (because that seems to matter a lot)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, other than GW are trying to be greedy by forcing people to buy from them directly to enhance their margin?
Just to be clear, yeah, I think that's exactly what they're trying to do.
Well then, in that we are in agreement.
What a horrible, horrible way to conduct business.
Kanluwen wrote: How is that "worrisome and unhealthy for the industry"?
Do you think that if the Infinity Art Book had been leaked by the publisher that CB would have been happy?
How is there a comparison between leaks of artwork from a book that you would only buy for the pictures and some early pics of minis?
If Wayland or BoW were giving the minis away early (or the 3D files perhaps) you'd have a more valid comparison.
What if the early pics of the minis came from a WD that wasn't officially on sale yet? After all, if you buy WD nowadays, its only for the pictures as there isn't much worth reading in it.
It would serve the same purpose. Much like if I uploaded pages from the Ikea catalogue on to a home furnishing blog.
If your home furnishing blog has an ad for a website where I can buy the Ikea products at a discount... then we're back on topic. Good work everybody!
So what you're saying is, if the blog, regardless of its subject matter, carries advertising for a retailer that is offering the product which must have been purchased from one source and one source only at a discount, this is somehow a bad thing?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, other than GW are trying to be greedy by forcing people to buy from them directly to enhance their margin?
Its irrelevant anyway, as both Wayland and BoW have flatly denied there was any information sharing going on anyway.
Just to reiterate as clearly as possible, we at Wayland did not pass information to BOW nor did they pass leaked information to us. Anyone will be able to see clearly that the moment our affiliation with BOW was announced their GW coverage reduced considerably. Our footprint on BOW could only be described as low key. We generated little traffic from BOW. We have had a legitimate and legal business activity damaged and restricted. We keep vast amounts of information on our competitors and I can safely say by some massive margin we adhere to GW trade terms more completely than any other.
PsychoticStorm wrote: What if the entire worrying point I try to raise is not about the leaks, but the way they decided to deal with them.
What is worrisome? its the fact GW tries to bully into submission or extinction everybody significantly smaller than them, which is the entire industry, based on them doing something they do not like not on a legal basis.
The fact they changed the distributors contracts just to stop BOW because their legal attempts failed shows the extend they are willing to go and how unethical they can become.
And Yes Kanluwen CB had leaks in the past some quite more significant than seen pages from the artbook, they did not hunt down to blogs that posted or reposted the leaks, nor the individuals that brought them into the light.
They did their internal security found who leaked them and stopped him.
If GW is hellbent to stop leaking, they can do their internal security and stop it, do they do that? no they legally threat forums, blogs and companies and when they fail they use their contracts to enforce their will.
Yes that IS worrisome.
And you just made my point for me.
The leaks that we have been seeing from GW are not coming from someone within GW. Internal security checks do nothing to stop an external source--in this case, the leaks have been coming from whoever they have publishing White Dwarf.
If someone from whatever publisher that CB had used to do the Art Book leaked the material to a blog then they would have gone after them.
Internal security also means making your contractors and freelance artists behave and keep their mouth shut, it does not mean you can or should go hunt people reporting what was leaked.
BOW did not rappelled in to the building and scooped the information out of GW hands they reported what was leaked, there is no reason why BOW or Wayland should suffer for GWs inability to keep whatever they want for themselves to themselves.
The fact they changed the distributors contracts just to stop BOW because their legal attempts failed shows the extend they are willing to go and how unethical they can become.
Not fact. Might not be wrong, But not fact. Because you think it's true, because BOW thinks it's true, doesn't mean that it is true (or false), they could be trying to stop more then just BOW, there are probably blogs and what not that you don't know about...
They did their internal security found who leaked them and stopped him.
would they still be mad if someone released it from a copy that got out before the sale date? then you would be talking about the same thing.
Are you are suggesting (and imagine how well this would go over) that GW not ship their WD or minis to places till after they are released so that they don't have to do what they do to stop leaks?
Of course if they would pre release the info themselves we'd have a different conversation, but they aren't and this is what they are doing to stop leaked information (presumably) they found a leak source, and are stopping it...
Well a trade agreement change only for the UK penalizing a business when a business partner talks about GW stuff that are not released, except if there is any other UK company that consist of a retailer and a news media company that I do not know of then its really tailored for Wayland/ BOW partnership.
They could be mad, there is nothing they can do about it beyond tightening the internal security next time,, once its out of your hands its out of your hands, beyond enforcing a release date on distributors, one cannot legally do much more.
insaniak wrote: Sure, Bandi could probably put out not-Eldar faster than GW could. But I would seriously doubt that there would be any real benefit in them doing so. GW are a big fish in a small pond. I doubt they even register on Bandi's radar at all. The effort involved in rushing out a series of models to sell to a niche part of a niche market wouldn't even be worth considering.
In fairness, that Russian company makes stuff very close to GW, and so do Mantic, especially at the beginning.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Well a trade agreement change only for the UK penalizing a business when a business partner talks about GW stuff that are not released, except if there is any other UK company that consist of a retailer and a news media company that I do not know of then its really tailored for Wayland/ BOW partnership.
but not fact. (again i said it may well be right, but that's not what fact is... GW sells mins = fact, gw is making new sisters plastics for release = not fact)
They could be mad, there is nothing they can do about it beyond tightening the internal security next time,, once its out of your hands its out of your hands, beyond enforcing a release date on distributors, one cannot legally do much more.
Minus doing what GW did... If the leak in the line is one of your distributors, then they make changes to stop that leak.. witch they did, and it worked.
That's not a fact that's assumption, fact is BOW and Wayland refused the accusations, but decided to part ways so that GW cannot penalize Wayland because BOW reports leaks like the ample ones found here on Dakka or BOK or wherever else.
DarthOvious wrote: Can you clarrify more on this story? I would like to look more into this so I could do with some campany names of those involved.
That was Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique, which was found to be violating said Article 101 by restricting online sales of their products altogether, a practice adopted by several large French manufacturers at the time. The ECJ ruling is C-439/09 from Oct 13th 2011.
And it has nothing to do with this case, as it was about a company trying to prevent online sales altogether.
As much as it pains me to say it: From an Austrian lawyer's POV (can't really comment on the UK), which includes European Law, GW's handling of the matter is not in breach of law. Whether GW's accusations and eventual punitive measures towards Wayland are justified is indeed a "contractual matter".
Also, please be aware that GW's view of BoW as a subsidiary of Wayland might be wrong, but it is well in their rights to hold that view - if a conflict arises out of this, it is up to a court to decide whose interpretation (GW's or Wayland's) has more merits, "legality" as most people understand it does not come into play here.
Is GW's interpretation of Wayland's relationsh with BoW bullying? Yes, personally, I'd say so. Is it illegal? Surely not.
All that being said, it never ceases to amaze me to what lengths GW will go to alienate their fanbase.
azreal13 wrote: It didn't work, info is still leaking, they've just stopped (temporarily) BoW disseminating it.
Which, given the nature of the online community, is like trying to cure the bubonic plague by shooting one rat.
I'm not arguing weather it's good or bad or how well it worked...
ASSUMING that gw changed their trade terms with Wayland to stop BOW from releasing info... THEN they made a move to stop that leak. and by distancing themselves from each other, any leaked info (and i in no way say that wayland was doing such) the change in the agreement caused them to seperate...
that's a lot of assuming..
Are there leaks still, sure... but that's not what the debate is here... Did GW change their agreement to seperate bow and wayland? we can only guess and draw conclusions based on what BOW and Wayland say (and maybe wargamers)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PsychoticStorm wrote: That's not a fact that's assumption, fact is BOW and Wayland refused the accusations, but decided to part ways so that GW cannot penalize Wayland because BOW reports leaks like the ample ones found here on Dakka or BOK or wherever else.
If the goal was to seperate them, then it worked... I don't know if Wayland gave BOW info, if GW thought they did and wanted to make it difficult to do so, then it did... doens't mean there arent other leaks out there...
If the goal was to seperate them, then it worked... I don't know if Wayland gave BOW info,
If you had even the slightest knowledge of the subject you would know they didn't.
Not just because on the previous page the owner of wayland told you they didn't , but because of what has actually happened.
BoW USED to post a lot of leaks, they leaked tyranids first, Necrons and then the flyers thing. That was before their association with wayland.
After they moved to Hockley and joined up with wayland, they leaked nothing at all, they barely commented on leaks that had 80 page threads full of pictures in this very forum. The association had the exact opposite effect on beasts of war.
As an aside, does anyone else think its rather ironic posters are posting so forcefully about how bad leaks are in a forum entirely devoted to leaks?
azreal13 wrote: It didn't work, info is still leaking, they've just stopped (temporarily) BoW disseminating it.
Which, given the nature of the online community, is like trying to cure the bubonic plague by shooting one rat.
I'm not arguing weather it's good or bad or how well it worked...
ASSUMING that gw changed their trade terms with Wayland to stop BOW from releasing info... THEN they made a move to stop that leak. and by distancing themselves from each other, any leaked info (and i in no way say that wayland was doing such) the change in the agreement caused them to seperate...
that's a lot of assuming..
Are there leaks still, sure... but that's not what the debate is here... Did GW change their agreement to seperate bow and wayland? we can only guess and draw conclusions based on what BOW and Wayland say (and maybe wargamers)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PsychoticStorm wrote: That's not a fact that's assumption, fact is BOW and Wayland refused the accusations, but decided to part ways so that GW cannot penalize Wayland because BOW reports leaks like the ample ones found here on Dakka or BOK or wherever else.
If the goal was to seperate them, then it worked... I don't know if Wayland gave BOW info, if GW thought they did and wanted to make it difficult to do so, then it did... doens't mean there arent other leaks out there...
You have the owner of Wayland games posting here personally and you still "don't know if Wayland gave BoW info?"
At this point, given the public statements made, the fact that GW don't distribute information to retailers and the fact that Warren has intimated that his source is a lot closer to home on multiple occasions in the past (mostly on Turn 8, while they were still in Ireland and not partnered with WG) it is fair to assume that WG really aren't responsible for passing info to BoW. Yes, it isn't technically a fact, but then by maintaining that position you're beginning to look like a creationist in a room full of Natural History professors.
azreal13 wrote: It didn't work, info is still leaking, they've just stopped (temporarily) BoW disseminating it.
Which, given the nature of the online community, is like trying to cure the bubonic plague by shooting one rat.
I'm not arguing weather it's good or bad or how well it worked...
ASSUMING that gw changed their trade terms with Wayland to stop BOW from releasing info... THEN they made a move to stop that leak. and by distancing themselves from each other, any leaked info (and i in no way say that wayland was doing such) the change in the agreement caused them to seperate...
that's a lot of assuming..
Are there leaks still, sure... but that's not what the debate is here... Did GW change their agreement to seperate bow and wayland? we can only guess and draw conclusions based on what BOW and Wayland say (and maybe wargamers)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PsychoticStorm wrote: That's not a fact that's assumption, fact is BOW and Wayland refused the accusations, but decided to part ways so that GW cannot penalize Wayland because BOW reports leaks like the ample ones found here on Dakka or BOK or wherever else.
If the goal was to seperate them, then it worked... I don't know if Wayland gave BOW info, if GW thought they did and wanted to make it difficult to do so, then it did... doens't mean there arent other leaks out there...
You have the owner of Wayland games posting here personally and you still "don't know if Wayland gave BoW info?"
correct.. I don't know the guy or his business, he could be full of crap and trying to cover his ass, could be (i do not think he is covering his ass, but this isn't about what i think, it's about what i know)? so no i don't KNOW, without a doubt in my head...
At this point, given the public statements made, the fact that GW don't distribute information to retailers and the fact that Warren has intimated that his source is a lot closer to home on multiple occasions in the past (mostly on Turn 8, while they were still in Ireland and not partnered with WG) it is fair to assume that WG really aren't responsible for passing info to BoW. Yes, it isn't technically a fact, but then by maintaining that position you're beginning to look like a creationist in a room full of Natural History professors.
I said many pages ago that i don't have a vested interest in who is "right" or "wrong" in this... I enjoy counter pointing things that people call facts when they are not facts but assumptions and emotional responses to things...
I guess it doesn't really matter who's doing the leaking - GW thought at one point that it was someone in the retail community doing it, so they changed their trade terms accordingly. I guess the fact that BoW and WG have interpreted this as "GW changed their trade terms specifically to break up the band!" has naturally brought a lot of attention on them, but when you've got WG posting on here stating that they never leaked anything, I feel like it's only respectful to take them on their word.
Bull0 wrote: I guess it doesn't really matter who's doing the leaking - GW thought at one point that it was someone in the retail community doing it, so they changed their trade terms accordingly. I guess the fact that BoW and WG have interpreted this as "GW changed their trade terms specifically to break up the band!" has naturally brought a lot of attention on them, but when you've got WG posting on here stating that they never leaked anything, I feel like it's only respectful to take them on their word.
weather i believe him or not, is irreverent
IF GW did this because THEY thought he was leaking info...
Bull0 wrote: I guess it doesn't really matter who's doing the leaking - GW thought at one point that it was someone in the retail community doing it, so they changed their trade terms accordingly. I guess the fact that BoW and WG have interpreted this as "GW changed their trade terms specifically to break up the band!" has naturally brought a lot of attention on them, but when you've got WG posting on here stating that they never leaked anything, I feel like it's only respectful to take them on their word.
weather i believe him or not, is irreverent
IF GW did this because THEY thought he was leaking info...
(it's all mostly irrelevent, unless someone wants to Sue GW, otherwise it's all weather or not you care, how much you care, and to what extent you care (IE will you stop buying stuff because of what you feel GW did) and how much wil this affect GW (that we will probably never really know if it affects them at all)
I said many pages ago that i don't have a vested interest in who is "right" or "wrong" in this... I enjoy counter pointing things that people call facts when they are not facts but assumptions and emotional responses to things...
Ah, I see. So that explains the wooly arguments and my difficulty pinning down your point.
I said many pages ago that i don't have a vested interest in who is "right" or "wrong" in this... I enjoy counter pointing things that people call facts when they are not facts but assumptions and emotional responses to things...
Ah, I see. So that explains the wooly arguments and my difficulty pinning down your point.
You don't have one, but are merely here to argue?
How clever.
Ok, we're done now.
debating and arguing are completly diffrent... we can't all just rage hate against GW because BOW and Wayland had to part ways.
I was trying to debate the facts of the case without adding in random "but they did this here, and that there (see the pages of chapterhouse talk) and what we KNOW vs what we FEEL.
GW has always used this business models, I can go back over 20 years here, to what some people believe was the good old days of GW, but even then this sort of thing happened.
Like this, you run your successful LFG selling GW or citadel as it was then, the area managers noted where there was good sales levels and suddenly a GW store opened in that town and the LFG is either told they can no longer sell GW or has to buy a lot more product, which it can't afford, this usually led to death of LFG. This happened to several were I lived.
What is happening now is just a extension of this, and GW wont change because it has worked for over 20 years
I said many pages ago that i don't have a vested interest in who is "right" or "wrong" in this... I enjoy counter pointing things that people call facts when they are not facts but assumptions and emotional responses to things...
Ah, I see. So that explains the wooly arguments and my difficulty pinning down your point.
You don't have one, but are merely here to argue?
How clever.
Ok, we're done now.
debating and arguing are completly diffrent... we can't all just rage hate against GW because BOW and Wayland had to part ways.
I was trying to debate the facts of the case without adding in random "but they did this here, and that there (see the pages of chapterhouse talk) and what we KNOW vs what we FEEL.
But in the pursuit of your Vulcan like purity of argument, you simply dismiss logical conclusions based on statements from those closest to the situation because "you have no proof"
This does a disservice to the integrity of those making those statements and just makes you look contrary and wilfully ignorant. Not to mention that there will never be enough "proof" in this given situation, as the odds of a statement of admission from GW signed in Kirby's blood is, at best, unlikely.
You may feel you're conducting a debate, but looking at the situation with a slightly less rigid set of parameters would probably give a slightly more realistic picture of events.
alphaecho wrote: I get that point Azreal13 but if "Magazine Publisher" knows that "Magazine Seller A" is passing the mag on three days before the selling date to his mate, who then scans pages and puts them on the internet then "Magazine Publisher" might want to impose extra terms on "Seller A" to prevent that.
That's one approach, certainly.
The other option is to simply not deliver the magazine to Magazine Seller A 3 days before the selling date.
That option has the added benefit of not requiring 'Magazine Publisher' to watch his sellers like a hawk to ensure they are abiding by the trade terms...
Pacific wrote: I thought a particular low point was the feature on AoBR miniatures, and a double page spread on the boxset, in White Dwarf a month before the release of 6th edition. You have to think was an attempt to help clear out the last of that stock.
Obviously if you're a serious fan then you would have known the new edition was right around the corner, but I wonder how many casual buyers (parents etc.) got caught out by that one.
They do this all the time, and have done so at least since the early to mid 1990s.
Once you've been around the block a few times, you see the marketing. Warhammer Quest had the "Two Years On" article, all the six-month games had one, and so on...
I don't begrudge them at all, the models in the box are still good and the box itself comes with a ton of stuff. I make a game of tracking down old boxes of Battle for Macragge and Black Reach on ebay. They often go for as much as they did at retail.
chris_valera wrote: In fairness, that Russian company makes stuff very close to GW, and so do Mantic, especially at the beginning.
Zveda can pretty much do what they want, secure in the knowledge that copyright law is unlikely to ever be enforced upon them. Although aside from a few very early (and mostly different scale) efforts, they seem to have branched away from the GW look.
I don't recall Mantic ever really copying GW's look. Their Elves, Dwarves and Orcs all follow very different aesthetics to GW's. And zombies and skeletons look much of a muchness whoever does them.
alphaecho wrote: I get that point Azreal13 but if "Magazine Publisher" knows that "Magazine Seller A" is passing the mag on three days before the selling date to his mate, who then scans pages and puts them on the internet then "Magazine Publisher" might want to impose extra terms on "Seller A" to prevent that.
That's one approach, certainly.
The other option is to simply not deliver the magazine to Magazine Seller A 3 days before the selling date.
That option has the added benefit of not requiring 'Magazine Publisher' to watch his sellers like a hawk to ensure they are abiding by the trade terms...
I think this approach is why people don't get their WD on time, though.
Pacific wrote: I thought a particular low point was the feature on AoBR miniatures, and a double page spread on the boxset, in White Dwarf a month before the release of 6th edition. You have to think was an attempt to help clear out the last of that stock.
Obviously if you're a serious fan then you would have known the new edition was right around the corner, but I wonder how many casual buyers (parents etc.) got caught out by that one.
They do this all the time, and have done so at least since the early to mid 1990s.
Once you've been around the block a few times, you see the marketing. Warhammer Quest had the "Two Years On" article, all the six-month games had one, and so on...
I don't begrudge them at all, the models in the box are still good and the box itself comes with a ton of stuff. I make a game of tracking down old boxes of Battle for Macragge and Black Reach on ebay. They often go for as much as they did at retail.
--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com
Man, AoBR was a bargain. The way all the marine models were suitably generic that you could field them as whoever you choose. Guess that's why the DV models are so screamingly Dark Angel, though.
Peregrine wrote: The issue isn't just people ragequitting over GW's business policies, it's that those policies are inherently bad.
For you. Apparently they work out pretty well for GW, which depends heavily on the impulse purchase, without thinking about the price tag. They're probably right, and they probably have the sales data to back it up.
Zweischneid wrote: Bigger companies than GW, such as Starbucks and their "drip feeder", have been (almost) brought to their knees by a social media shitstorm and customer boycott. Politicians and CEO careers have ended due to Twitter and/or Facebook backlash. In early 2011, governments south of the Mediterranean toppled not in small parts thanks to Twitter.
Saying that an online backlash is irrelevant for ... all things considered ... a small-to-medium-sized company like GW is ludicrous.
Counterpoint; fan backlash hasn't caused any price drops since the release of the CSM core box set back in 2001.
I will say that GW shutting down their facebook comments is a bad idea, and is an example of them sticking their head in the sand. They want to make a luxury product, but want to market it to everyone, and are surprised about the backlash.
DarthOvious wrote: Excuse me but I don't how many times I have read posts by people who buy Mantic models to represent their Warhammer Fantasy army. I lost count.
In fairness that's anecdotal evidence. For every fan who jumps ship for Mantic, there might be twenty that just bought Island of Blood or Dark Vengeance. GW certainly says and acts as though that's the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote: He mentions the "I won't buy X because Y is coming out" issue, but GW does not necessarily profit from this.
They stated repeatedly that they do,
AlexHolker wrote: If X is, say, a PS4, GW does not benefit from people buying a PS4 because they don't know they need to save up money for the next Tyranid release. And they do not benefit from people buying a PS4 and then finding out they don't have any hobby money - or hobby time - to spend on Tyranids.
For every adult that budgets and thinks carefuilly about what they want, there's probably 20 kids with Mommy's credit card.
I admit it, I'm not immune. I ran out to buy the old Dark Elf box sets becasue I knew they would be clearanced out, and I thought about starting an Empire and Ultramarines army because they were featured in WD. That two-and-a-half company Ultramarines army in the latest WD was very impressive.
I think this approach is why people don't get their WD on time,
No, people don't get their WD on time because GW posts than to subscribers on release day. That's an entirely different issue to getting them to retailers at the right time.
Counterpoint; fan backlash hasn't caused any price drops since the release of the CSM core box set back in 2001.
So that lack of a price drops proves that there have been zero effects on the bottom line (for example, but not limited to, lost customers or customers buying less?
I don't quite follow how that is a "counterpoint"?
In fairness that's anecdotal evidence. For every fan who jumps ship for Mantic, there might be twenty that just bought Island of Blood or Dark Vengeance. GW certainly says and acts as though that's the case.
True enough. Mantic Games did... um ... 3 Million USD on Kickstarter last year? Let's say they did twice as much again off Kickstarter for a ~ 10 Million USD Revenue in a year?
Games Workshop makes that much revenue about every two weeks.
GW is using its bulk to threaten or eliminate whoever does something they do not like or perceive as a threat, regardless of its legality or ethical considerations, there are ample of examples for this in the past and the trend, BOW case been the latest, only gets worse.
If people want to defend this behavior and believe its good for anybody that is not GW, good for them, for me and others its at least worrisome and unhealthy for the industry.
Something I wanted follow up because people seem to be unable to see past their own gaming tables and obsessions.
Many LGS and online traders have, since either GW has put out games, or since internet trading of such things has existed, built a business of selling the most popular games. Now at least 5 years ago, or more, GW games were it. Yeah PP had stuff out, and Rackham still existed. But if you were going to be a gaming store of some form, you would more than likely base your business on the big sellers.
Now of course that is fine and good business sense.
Now where this becomes unhealthy for the industry as whole is that GW can wield this financial control like a hammer. By denying trade with a store, for no real reason than that it out competes you own store in the area (and more than likely sells other war gaming products) is fundamentally wrong. GW can with their historical dominance cause the shut down of a store, and also shut out the competition. This is why for stores it's not as easy as 'stop selling GW stuff', because for historical reasons (i.e. GW was the only game in town at the time) your business is built upon their products.
Therefore GWs behaviour to stores, in a heavy handed manner, does damage the industry as they can shut down outlets of rival products, because of this historical dependence.
So what is the best thing in future for stores in this situation?
If anything, this behaviour should push stores to promote other rival products more - to diversify their income streams. Then if GW did bring down the hammer on them, then fine, who cares. But this is going to take time.
So what is the take home here? GW is unethical in how it operates with stores because it has its own competing stores online and offline. It therefore acts in a manner akin to insider trading (oh look this store is doing well, lets set up there). GW is also unethical because it can easily estimate how dependent a store is on their products, and so hold this over them. So yes, GWs practices are damaging to the industry because of the broadness of the influence they have. And how they can even apply this influence to indirectly manipulate groups (like changing their TOC). A hypothetical here is that GW could change the TOC in a manner that shuts down Table Top Nation, simply because it is too much of a rival to Warhammer World, and because they want to shut down a place that hosts tournaments and events for rival products.
If anything, GW would be best if it was two entities. Citadel Miniatures (maker of the games and minis), and Games Workshop (seller of games in general). And traders would be best of steering their customers to other products.
Your statement originally struck me as an absolute one. Limiting it to this thread just makes it look like you are trying to dodge conceding a point though.
Erm, whatever. Sure big guy. I'm sure you've never used language like that before. I'll hand myself in to the grammar Nazi's first chance I get.
It is extremely interesting (and eye-opening). There are transcripts, evidentiary filings, and rulings all linked in the thread here on Dakka. And they are spread out, so not easy to find or point to. But the entire thread is worth reading.
Yes well 188 pages is going to take me a while. I'll just need to read what I can.
Well, she will likely never come out and say for sure whether she was fired, asked to resign, or voluntarily quit, so we will always be in the dark about that. And we will never know whether it was her performance during the trial, her setup for it, or some combination thereof. We do know via her Linkedin profile that she is looking for work.
In the first few pages I think someone suggested that it was normal for lawyers to do this and move about a bit. However I guess we'll never know.
I don't believe that the original use of the term would be protected anymore. IIRC, it was used first in the 30's. This, also was discussed in the Chapterhouse thread though. (Seeing a theme? )
Yes, the theme is that big companies are full of jackasses. That's what I got so far. Also all the jokes about lawyers on the moon weren't actually jokes. They were feasible solutions.
We don't really need to see what they do in the future. The pattern of bad behaviour is already in the historical record.
That doesn't mean they will stop though.
It would be entertaining for some other, larger, companies whose work "inspired" GW in the past to take an interest in them, for sure. Come to think of it, there is a large computer games company (EA, I think) who is using designs that seem heavily "inspired" by GW ones. Wonder why they haven't been sued yet?...
Not sure why but I don't really know what designs we are talking about.
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
That's a big if and a huge assumption that everybody here mentioning it is really lying, you can of course go like everybody else follow the trial read the transcripts and form your won opinion, see the charts and the notes on what they claimed it was their, read the experts reports and the discussion by forum members there, inducing actual layers.
Or you can assume everybody here is purposefully lie.
Or perhaps you link to a copy of those transcripts instead of a 188 page thread. You know, original source material and all.
Pg 170 in the CHS thread is the point where the trial concludes,
There is a post by czakk (who I believe is a practicing lawyer) half way down pg 178 which has the ruling documents attached.
No trawling required.
Trust you to go and actually do something sensible, like point us in the right direction rather than having us go on a wild goose chase.
DarthOvious wrote: Or perhaps you link to a copy of those transcripts instead of a 188 page thread. You know, original source material and all.
Or perhaps we could all stop trying to recreate that 188 page thread here. All of the relevant discussion has been linked to. There is no need to discuss it all again here, in a thread that has nothing to do with the Chapterhouse case.
But it's a lot juicier if you lie and pretend they were trying to copyright roman numerals as an isolated concept. Anybody can relate to that! They've existed for thousands of years! Scandalous
That's a big if and a huge assumption that everybody here mentioning it is really lying, you can of course go like everybody else follow the trial read the transcripts and form your won opinion, see the charts and the notes on what they claimed it was their, read the experts reports and the discussion by forum members there, inducing actual layers.
Or you can assume everybody here is purposefully lie.
Considering what happens any and every time Matt Ward is rumored to be writing an upcoming book?
Yeah. It's not unfair to assume that people purposefully lie where GW is involved.
I hear that. The many idiots who have stated they don't like Matt Wards fluff and then point to Mephiston as an example. Yeah cause I'm sure Mephiston's fluff hasn't been around since third eidition, oh wait, it has.
Zweischneid wrote: Saying that an online backlash is irrelevant for ... all things considered ... a small-to-medium-sized company like GW is ludicrous.
Counterpoint; fan backlash hasn't caused any price drops since the release of the CSM core box set back in 2001.
Fan backlash is one of the more pointless actions a GW customer can engage in. They'd be more likely to get a reply if they queried a rock, chatted up a stone or ranted at a brick.
"Decent people should not live here. They'd be happier someplace else."
DarthOvious wrote: I hear that. The many idiots who have stated they don't like Matt Wards fluff and then point to Mephiston as an example. Yeah cause I'm sure Mephiston's fluff hasn't been around since third eidition, oh wait, it has.
I think you'd find it's actually second edition. Getting your facts wrong whilst berating other people for getting their facts wrong is a very particular kind of obtuseness.
In case you were thinking the pole dancing kit was intended for some kind of nonstripper (poles make for good exercise, right?), then you didn't notice it comes with a garter and play money to stuff into it.
The product was sold in a chain called Tesco, which is like the Walmart of Great Britian, who denied that this was marketed to children and has since relegated it to the exercise department. That's not only about as transparent as selling a pole dancing kit in the children's toy section -- it's also a hilariously blatant lie. As advertised on the website before being forced to take it down, the Peek-a-Boo Pole Dancing Kit was "suitable for participants of 11 years old and upwards."
I think you'd find it's actually second edition. Getting your facts wrong whilst berating other people for getting their facts wrong is a very particular kind of obtuseness.
Bull0 wrote: Man, AoBR was a bargain. The way all the marine models were suitably generic that you could field them as whoever you choose. Guess that's why the DV models are so screamingly Dark Angel, though.
Notice Battle for Macragge had both the Tyranids and Space Marines on separate sprues, but when they realized how many people were simply flipping the sprues on ebay, they combined them all, for Black Reach. Didn't work, fans just cut the pieces out, and flipped the clipped-out models on ebay. Now they're trying to "narrow" things by only including DAs, but really all that means is that everyone starts a DA army.
I'd also take a moment to point out the LE versions of The Hobbit and Dark Vengeance, were specifically designed to part the fence-sitters with their money. I admit it, I bought both box sets, even though I usually wait to get things from ebay or internet discounters. The extra figure was worth it to me, and I'm sure it was worth it to a great many other fence-sitters as well.
I dare say GW knows who their target customer is.
Kanluwen wrote: The leaks that we have been seeing from GW are not coming from someone within GW. Internal security checks do nothing to stop an external source--in this case, the leaks have been coming from whoever they have publishing White Dwarf.
Then GW should threaten the magazine publisher, threaten to switch publishers, or have them punish or fire whoever leaked the pics.
This is a huge deal, although I doubt anything can get done. Pics for a magazine such as, say, Playboy get leaked all the time, and there are sites that specialize in getting the photos early.
Zweischneid wrote: So that lack of a price drops proves that there have been zero effects on the bottom line (for example, but not limited to, lost customers or customers buying less?
I don't quite follow how that is a "counterpoint"?
I wasn't aware I had to disprove every sale made at every GW register ever.in the history or mankind. I only mentioned that fan backlash hasn't been an issue as it relates to prices except in the case of CSM box set. Customers leaving because of steadily increasing prices is something else, although I do think that happens as well. It's just that fan backlash, as it pertains to feedback and social media criticism, doen't seem to have much of an effect on GW.
Now, now. Corvus Belli are perfect little angels who would commit no wrong.
I quite like how you brought something from pages past and completely ignored my reply on that subject too.
since you like short versions, yes they had similar problems in the past and worked their internal security, not chased people.
I saw your reply. My response is one of mere cynicism when it comes to corporate behaviour.
It's worth quoting myself to point out the error in this kind of argument.
It's worth pointing out that GW suffers from deficits that, to my knowledge, no other major game producers suffer from: the nature and extent of their legal overreach, which can fairly be characterized as unethical, possibly going so far as illegal.
The closest correlate would be the incident where PP asked the developer of iBodger to stop development on his app, as they were coming out with their own Warroom app. But taking the app down was the voluntary actions of a fan, not a reaction to a C&D letter.
GW, by contrast, can credibly be described as doing things like: fabricating evidence in a Federal Litigation, subornation of perjury, and abusing the provisions of the DMCA.
Whatever one thinks of Corvus Belli, Privateer Press, Mantic or whatever*, chances are your quarrels with them are based on aesthetics or other game based problems. With GW, there is a credible allegation that they are engaged in systematic abuse of the legal system. It's a whole other level of problem with a corporation.
Follow the link for references.
For those interested in more detailing on GW's perfidy, simply scroll through the linked thread, as most of my posts in it are devoted to detailing (with supporting documentation) GW's history of improper, unethical and indeed borderline illegal activities (sometimes not even borderline).
Now, now. Corvus Belli are perfect little angels who would commit no wrong.
At the end of the day companies suck, but we need them to live our lives. I've seen way much worse than this. For instance good example here..
There are different levels of sucking..! CB listen to fan feedback, do everything they can in terms of special events for their fans, even produce things specifically if they have been asked for (the recent art books, the 'wulver girl' to give two examples). When another forum wanted to start up, not only did they give them permission, they helped them out with exclusives and artwork to help pull people to the site. They've actually done similar things with BoW, and at every step have tried to maintain that connection with the hardcore element of their fans.
Contrast with GW, who rather than embracing modern social media and communications, actually have less now than they had 10 years ago (when they at least had a forum); at least half a dozen fan sites and blogs have been forced to close down, threatened or altered due to the threat of legal action over the past few years. They've cancelled their official tournaments, scrapped games days and reduced the quality of the ones that are still run. They've closed down their facebook page - other than sending an email or letter off into the void (yes... I've tried this following the rest of world trade ban, which effectively stopped me from buying GW stuff when I was abroad, never got an acknowledgement) there is no way at all to contact the company or any route whatsoever for feedback. For something so niche, so personal, as a tabletop wargaming hobby, that is unconscionable in this day and age. Especially when you compare it to practically every other company in this industry.
Now I know an element of this comes down to GW not needing to do this.. they are after all the biggest player, and as has been said it's possible that their sales strategy just doesn't recognise anyone who has followed them for more than a few years. But, that's small consolation for those that have - as it stands, if you look at the fan discussion and general community atmosphere, no prize for guessing which groups of fans are happier.
I agree with your final comment, there are examples a thousand times worse, even than the one you posted, that make GW look like saints by comparison. But, this forum is for focusing on the actions of companies within the wargaming industry. If this kind of story comes up, then it's only fair to have a rational discussion about it and its implications - as in this case, we would all be better off if GW hadn't made this advance towards BoW, and it's important to recognise that.
Simple answer - stop buying their stuff. If you continue to purchase GW products then you have no right to complain about how they conduct business, because you are directly responsible. Any excuse you try to dream up to justify your addiction will never change that fact. You don't have to stop playing the game if you enjoy playing the game, just stop buying their stuff.
Now, now. Corvus Belli are perfect little angels who would commit no wrong.
I quite like how you brought something from pages past and completely ignored my reply on that subject too.
since you like short versions, yes they had similar problems in the past and worked their internal security, not chased people.
I saw your reply. My response is one of mere cynicism when it comes to corporate behaviour.
It's worth quoting myself to point out the error in this kind of argument.
It's worth pointing out that GW suffers from deficits that, to my knowledge, no other major game producers suffer from: the nature and extent of their legal overreach, which can fairly be characterized as unethical, possibly going so far as illegal.
The closest correlate would be the incident where PP asked the developer of iBodger to stop development on his app, as they were coming out with their own Warroom app. But taking the app down was the voluntary actions of a fan, not a reaction to a C&D letter.
GW, by contrast, can credibly be described as doing things like: fabricating evidence in a Federal Litigation, subornation of perjury, and abusing the provisions of the DMCA.
Whatever one thinks of Corvus Belli, Privateer Press, Mantic or whatever*, chances are your quarrels with them are based on aesthetics or other game based problems. With GW, there is a credible allegation that they are engaged in systematic abuse of the legal system. It's a whole other level of problem with a corporation.
Follow the link for references.
For those interested in more detailing on GW's perfidy, simply scroll through the linked thread, as most of my posts in it are devoted to detailing (with supporting documentation) GW's history of improper, unethical and indeed borderline illegal activities (sometimes not even borderline).
Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.
The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.
I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.
DarthOvious wrote: Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.
The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.
I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.
The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.
Now, now. Corvus Belli are perfect little angels who would commit no wrong.
At the end of the day companies suck, but we need them to live our lives. I've seen way much worse than this. For instance good example here..
There are different levels of sucking..! CB listen to fan feedback, do everything they can in terms of special events for their fans, even produce things specifically if they have been asked for (the recent art books, the 'wulver girl' to give two examples). When another forum wanted to start up, not only did they give them permission, they helped them out with exclusives and artwork to help pull people to the site. They've actually done similar things with BoW, and at every step have tried to maintain that connection with the hardcore element of their fans.
Contrast with GW, who rather than embracing modern social media and communications, actually have less now than they had 10 years ago (when they at least had a forum); at least half a dozen fan sites and blogs have been forced to close down, threatened or altered due to the threat of legal action over the past few years. They've cancelled their official tournaments, scrapped games days and reduced the quality of the ones that are still run. They've closed down their facebook page - other than sending an email or letter off into the void (yes... I've tried this following the rest of world trade ban, which effectively stopped me from buying GW stuff when I was abroad, never got an acknowledgement) there is no way at all to contact the company or any route whatsoever for feedback. For something so niche, so personal, as a tabletop wargaming hobby, that is unconscionable in this day and age. Especially when you compare it to practically every other company in this industry.
Now I know an element of this comes down to GW not needing to do this.. they are after all the biggest player, and as has been said it's possible that their sales strategy just doesn't recognise anyone who has followed them for more than a few years. But, that's small consolation for those that have - as it stands, if you look at the fan discussion and general community atmosphere, no prize for guessing which groups of fans are happier.
I agree with your final comment, there are examples a thousand times worse, even than the one you posted, that make GW look like saints by comparison. But, this forum is for focusing on the actions of companies within the wargaming industry. If this kind of story comes up, then it's only fair to have a rational discussion about it and its implications - as in this case, we would all be better off if GW hadn't made this advance towards BoW, and it's important to recognise that.
I agree with a large portion of your post. Its just in my experience the bigger the company, the more corrupt it gets. All due respect to others like Corvus Belli, I'm sure they do a good job for their fans and make good models for them but once they do get that overwhelming support I don't see them turning out differently. Partly because big companies might have the need to order to protect themselves. There are good food companies who do a good job, even fast food. However you take a look at McDonalds and then see what they do. They include additives in their food to make them more addictive, so customers will come back and buy more. However McDonalds still chug away as the largest company in the world without much damage to their reputation.
Sure I admit that GW has done some pretty questionable things, but I think its the nature of big business. The bigger you get, the more necessary for it to protect its IP, sometimes with underhanded tactics. Say what you want about Chapterhouse, but at the end of the day they were making items for Games Workshop products and they were taking a percentage of the market share away from them. They directly advertised on their site that their stuff was specifically for GWs products. GW might have used some underhanded tactics in court (not sure yet, still need to read the transcripts) and I admit that lying in general is a bad thing, but it seems to me that they were pulling some fast ones in order to protect their IP. They look desperate, as if to say that the kind of competition that companies like Chapterhouse offer is the kind of competition that will hurt them greatly.
DarthOvious wrote: Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.
The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.
I suggest any British person with concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.
The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.
DarthOvious wrote: Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.
The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.
I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.
The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.
Those things are for the courts to decide. Despite all of GWs illegal activity during that case as presented by some people here it doesn't look like the courts dealt with it by punishing GW in any significant manner. So I'm wondering why and I need to have a look at the transcripts at some point.
The reason why I linked to fair trading and standards is because people continually post that they are the big bully boys of the market who are driving competitors out of the business. Well that's a concern to notify the office of fair trading and standards about in my opinion. I'm only trying to help those with complaints contact them to ask them what they can do.
gangreen wrote: GW has always used this business models, I can go back over 20 years here, to what some people believe was the good old days of GW, but even then this sort of thing happened.
Like this, you run your successful LFG selling GW or citadel as it was then, the area managers noted where there was good sales levels and suddenly a GW store opened in that town and the LFG is either told they can no longer sell GW or has to buy a lot more product, which it can't afford, this usually led to death of LFG. This happened to several were I lived.
What is happening now is just a extension of this, and GW wont change because it has worked for over 20 years
You are of course, entirely correct. Delivery times of product were also effected, though you could always guarantee that the competing GW store would have the new releases the morning they opened, while the competing store would often still be waiting on their deliveries. GW started down this way road back when the now-canonised Bryan Ansell was in charge, even before Kirby and co.
It's just GW abusing their market position again to extend their paranoid control over everything about their product. Ideally they'd like that no one was able to publish anything about them, they want to be the sole source of all information about their product and that people come to their website to buy product. This is why their trade conditions with retailers grow ever more demanding preventing where things can be sold and heaping other things upon them with threats of being cut off at a moment's notice. It's either that or GW being entirely self serving and making sure that items produced in limited quantities go to their shops and web store first, again putting the independents in a bad spot, or maybe just GW dragging their feet about sending stuff out which results in traders not getting new stock on time. Unfortunately GW is a big enough part of the market place that few independent retailers can do without them, so they have to deal with the devil. And this puts GW in a powerful position. Any time they like they can cut off a shop citing any one of their suspicions and torpedo that business. Usually they settle for doing business but in a manner which abuses their advantageous position.
I've said it before, the word I use to describe GW is toxic. Toxic to this hobby and retailers, with their endless legal threats to fan sites and small businesses, their underhanded means of enforcing their legal threats as revealed in the CHS case, their unhealthy approach to managing independent retailers and their general aggressiveness towards the community. They are too big and too nasty for a niche hobby.
DarthOvious wrote: Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.
The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.
I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.
The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.
Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.
DarthOvious wrote: Can you clarrify more on this story? I would like to look more into this so I could do with some campany names of those involved.
That was Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique, which was found to be violating said Article 101 by restricting online sales of their products altogether, a practice adopted by several large French manufacturers at the time. The ECJ ruling is C-439/09 from Oct 13th 2011.
And it has nothing to do with this case, as it was about a company trying to prevent online sales altogether.
Yes, I only posted it as an example that companies are not allowed to only sell to whom they wan't, apart from that it has nothing to do with this particular case.
As much as it pains me to say it: From an Austrian lawyer's POV (can't really comment on the UK), which includes European Law, GW's handling of the matter is not in breach of law. Whether GW's accusations and eventual punitive measures towards Wayland are justified is indeed a "contractual matter".
Also, please be aware that GW's view of BoW as a subsidiary of Wayland might be wrong, but it is well in their rights to hold that view - if a conflict arises out of this, it is up to a court to decide whose interpretation (GW's or Wayland's) has more merits, "legality" as most people understand it does not come into play here.
Is GW's interpretation of Wayland's relationsh with BoW bullying? Yes, personally, I'd say so. Is it illegal? Surely not.
All that being said, it never ceases to amaze me to what lengths GW will go to alienate their fanbase.
Its nice to have someone with actual experience in European law in here but could you expand on this a bit please?
Why do you say that the contractual restriction due to Wayland's association with a 3rd party (BoW) is a contractual matter and not in violation of section e)?
Because it seems like that section was written specifically for a case like this, a supplier is using its dominant position to enforce a contractual restriction on a client that would put them at a severe competitive disadvantage in the market place unless they accept supplementary obligations that have no connection to the contract itself.
DarthOvious wrote: Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.
The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.
I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.
The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.
Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.
Thats pretty much what I'm saying. If people here in the UK really think that GW is throwing their weight around unfairly then contact the OFT. Have them deal with it since thats their Job. If they are not doing anything about it then its because they either don't know what GW is up to or don't think that what GW is doing anything illegal.
Yes, I only posted it as an example that companies are not allowed to only sell to whom they wan't, apart from that it has nothing to do with this particular case.
Fair enough. I'm of the mind that companies should be able to sell to whoever they want. If they make the product then they should have that say. Without them the product would not exist in the first place.
Its nice to have someone with actual experience in European law in here but could you expand on this a bit please?
Why do you say that the contractual restriction due to Wayland's association with a 3rd party (BoW) is a contractual matter and not in violation of section e)?
Because it seems like that section was written specifically for a case like this, a supplier is using its dominant position to enforce a contractual restriction on a client that would put them at a severe competitive disadvantage in the market place unless they accept supplementary obligations that have no connection to the contract itself.
There were exceptions in the law stated under section 3. Perhaps GW can claim under one of the exceptions of the law. Of course I am not saying that this is fact but just covering it as a possibility.
I've said it before, the word I use to describe GW is toxic. Toxic to this hobby and retailers, with their endless legal threats to fan sites and small businesses, their underhanded means of enforcing their legal threats as revealed in the CHS case, their unhealthy approach to managing independent retailers and their general aggressiveness towards the community. They are too big and too nasty for a niche hobby.
I agree with some of your feelings about GW - their attempted copyright landgrab on the illustrators was both incompetent and obnoxious.
But... the entire characterisation on here is simply a category error. GW are typical, not toxic. GW are proprietorial about 40k - because they invented it. (Yes, of course other people's work contributed to it).
As for Beasts of War - well, it is simply a contractual matter, in black and white. Whether or not you agree with how GW publicise (or don't publicise) their own products, that's their prerogative. Likewise, Chapterhouse were openly using their brands - there was always going to be a legal showdown.
If BoW want to publish news, they should learn about Fair Use, and stay within that, then if GW attempt to intimidate them beyond that point, they should simply tell them to get stuffed. I've dealt with similarly intimidating companies in the past - once of them a much-loved brand - and if you make it clear on what basis you're using material, there is simply nothing they can do.
THe comparison with Apple is a fairly apt one, except GW aren't wilfully obscure about their supply chain, and don't employ workers in near-slavery conditions. Although I admit that working in some of those nasty malls in places like Bromley does infringe on yer human rights.
I've said it before, the word I use to describe GW is toxic. Toxic to this hobby and retailers, with their endless legal threats to fan sites and small businesses, their underhanded means of enforcing their legal threats as revealed in the CHS case, their unhealthy approach to managing independent retailers and their general aggressiveness towards the community. They are too big and too nasty for a niche hobby.
I agree with some of your feelings about GW - their attempted copyright landgrab on the illustrators was both incompetent and obnoxious.
But... the entire characterisation on here is simply a category error. GW are typical, not toxic. GW are proprietorial about 40k - because they invented it. (Yes, of course other people's work contributed to it).
As for Beasts of War - well, it is simply a contractual matter, in black and white. Whether or not you agree with how GW publicise (or don't publicise) their own products, that's their prerogative. Likewise, Chapterhouse were openly using their brands - there was always going to be a legal showdown.
If BoW want to publish news, they should learn about Fair Use, and stay within that, then if GW attempt to intimidate them beyond that point, they should simply tell them to get stuffed. I've dealt with similarly intimidating companies in the past - once of them a much-loved brand - and if you make it clear on what basis you're using material, there is simply nothing they can do.
THe comparison with Apple is a fairly apt one, except GW aren't wilfully obscure about their supply chain, and don't employ workers in near-slavery conditions. Although I admit that working in some of those nasty malls in places like Bromley does infringe on yer human rights.
Just wanted to say this was a good comment and that I agree with.
I feel the point ignored is that it became a "contractual matter" after the legal threats didn't pass, BOW know and used Fair Use, so GW chose to use a contract update to enforce what they wanted and the law did not allowed them to.
Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.
It's a different area of law. It's like going to the police to sort out your divorce. If GW were doing anything blatently in violation of trading standards, such as falsely advertising their products as the best in the world, then the OFT is where you'd go. Even IF thr OFT dealt with this sort of case, it would need to be the aggrieved party who lodged the complaint, not the customers.
Why do I suggest this? GW is able to change its TOC such that it a) shuts down competition with its own shops b) shuts down competition with its own online store and c) in doing both of those it also acts to hamper competing products sold by those competing stores.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I feel the point ignored is that it became a "contractual matter" after the legal threats didn't pass, BOW know and used Fair Use, so GW chose to use a contract update to enforce what they wanted and the law did not allowed them to.
It's not being ignored; we all know that's what happened; WG are still welcome not to trade with GW if they consider their terms unfair. That should've been where the story ended ten pages ago, but we've been going round the houses talking about how immoral and dirty it is, how it's bad like the CHS lawsuit was bad, and other total irrelevances.
Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.
It's a different area of law. It's like going to the police to sort out your divorce. If GW were doing anything blatently in violation of trading standards, such as falsely advertising their products as the best in the world, then the OFT is where you'd go. Even IF thr OFT dealt with this sort of case, it would need to be the aggrieved party who lodged the complaint, not the customers.
Bull0 - not mentioning the OFT in this thread since 2013
I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:
Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.
So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.
Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I feel the point ignored is that it became a "contractual matter" after the legal threats didn't pass, BOW know and used Fair Use, so GW chose to use a contract update to enforce what they wanted and the law did not allowed them to.
It's not being ignored; we all know that's what happened; WG are still welcome not to trade with GW if they consider their terms unfair. That should've been where the story ended ten pages ago, but we've been going round the houses talking about how immoral and dirty it is, how it's bad like the CHS lawsuit was bad, and other total irrelevances.
Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.
It's a different area of law. It's like going to the police to sort out your divorce. If GW were doing anything blatently in violation of trading standards, such as falsely advertising their products as the best in the world, then the OFT is where you'd go. Even IF thr OFT dealt with this sort of case, it would need to be the aggrieved party who lodged the complaint, not the customers.
Bull0 - not mentioning the OFT in this thread since 2013
Sure WG can stop trading with them. But the issue here is that they have a historical business model that is based on what was, back in the day, better terms. Yes there are other products out there now that they can sell, but the market doesn't match that of the GW stuff. So WG can stop trading with them, but first they need to diversify their customer base and become less reliant on GW (which I would guess is what any store should be doing if a change in TOC coudl put you out of business).
PsychoticStorm wrote: I feel the point ignored is that it became a "contractual matter" after the legal threats didn't pass, BOW know and used Fair Use, so GW chose to use a contract update to enforce what they wanted and the law did not allowed them to.
It's not being ignored; we all know that's what happened; WG are still welcome not to trade with GW if they consider their terms unfair. That should've been where the story ended ten pages ago, but we've been going round the houses talking about how immoral and dirty it is, how it's bad like the CHS lawsuit was bad, and other total irrelevances.
Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.
It's a different area of law. It's like going to the police to sort out your divorce. If GW were doing anything blatently in violation of trading standards, such as falsely advertising their products as the best in the world, then the OFT is where you'd go. Even IF thr OFT dealt with this sort of case, it would need to be the aggrieved party who lodged the complaint, not the customers.
Bull0 - not mentioning the OFT in this thread since 2013
Sure WG can stop trading with them. But the issue here is that they have a historical business model that is based on what was, back in the day, better terms. Yes there are other products out there now that they can sell, but the market doesn't match that of the GW stuff. So WG can stop trading with them, but first they need to diversify their customer base and become less reliant on GW (which I would guess is what any store should be doing if a change in TOC coudl put you out of business).
Emphasis on "historical business model" there. Note that there are plenty of people competing with GW just fine - PP, Mantic, etc - but they have their own product lines.
You miss the point. WG is not yet in a position to just drop GW products, because to much of their revenue source is based on those products, due to the historical, near monopoly, GW had on the niche hobby of scifi/fantasy wargaming.
The presence of other products does not change that fact over night, nor immediately change WG revenue streams. The only thing they can do is promote as many other products as possible to make their revenue diverse.
tl;dr
WG can't just drop GW products over night because their business and customer base in entrenched in a predating business model.
I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:
Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.
So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.
Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.
It would be really nice if you included who said that. Without context its pretty meaningless.
I could easily quote sentences from either council which if assumed as fact would damn the other side.
Regarding the products listed in paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of Chapterhouse’s proposed judgment, as to which Games Workshop voluntarily withdrew its claims (for numerous reasons, including business considerations and a desire to simplify and shorten the case) if these products are to be listed in a judgment, the judgment should also accurately reflect that, even though the claims were withdrawn, they were withdrawn voluntarily. One of them (Item 110 on the claim charts) was
withdrawn without prejudice. However, as these products are already identified in previous consent judgments already entered by the Court, there is no reason to include them again in this Judgment and needlessly complicate it. If they are listed, separate provision should be made to clarify that Item 110 was withdrawn without prejudice and that all of the products were withdrawn voluntarily (as explained in the Court’s prior orders and grant of summary judgment.
I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:
Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.
So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.
Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.
It would be really nice if you included who said that. Without context its pretty meaningless.
I could easily quote sentences from either council which if assumed as fact would damn the other side.
See the part where I said it was from THE MAIN COURT DOCUMENT? Yes I know caps are impolite but I thought I would it clear this time since you missed it the first time.
It matters because GW is taking advantage of how their previous near monopoly in a niche industry has meant stores are too reliant on their products.
This is why arguments that 'WG should just stop trading with GW', are simplistic, naive, and miss the historical reason for why WG and others can't just do that, and how GW knows this and uses this to their advantage. Such as changing TOCs so that it benefits them because they know stores can't just drop their products immediately.
So while it is business, it is not business based on the quality of a product, but on a historical financial dependency that they helped establish.
Furthermore, just by reading up on some definitions about a monopoly, from wikipedia
Monopolies derive their market power from barriers to entry – circumstances that prevent or greatly impede a potential competitor's ability to compete in a market. There are three major types of barriers to entry; economic, legal and deliberate.[7]
[...]
Deliberate actions: A company wanting to monopolise a market may engage in various types of deliberate action to exclude competitors or eliminate competition. Such actions include collusion, lobbying governmental authorities, and force (see anti-competitive practices).[citation needed]
Now what anti-competitive practices are those then?
Refusal to deal (also known as a group boycott) is one of several anti-competitive practices forbidden in countries which have restricted market economies. For example:
Agreements involving competitors that involve restricting the supply of goods are prohibited if they have the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition in a market in which the businesses operate.
—Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Refusal to deal [1]
"Refusal to deal" includes any agreement which restricts, or is likely to restrict, by any method the persons or classes of persons to whom goods are sold or from whom goods are bought
—The Competition Act, 2002 (India) S4-d
So it is anti-competitive to act in the way GW does, to refuse trade, if they knowingly understand that doing so collapses a business that has a historic dependence on their products, because that business has recently also taken to selling competing products.
This is why it would actually be worth bring it up with the OFT.
dr_ether wrote: It matters because GW is taking advantage of how their previous near monopoly in a niche industry has meant stores are too reliant on their products.
This is why arguments that 'WG should just stop trading with GW', are simplistic, naive, and miss the historical reason for why WG and others can't just do that, and how GW knows this and uses this to their advantage. Such as changing TOCs so that it benefits them because they know stores can't just drop their products immediately.
So while it is business, it is not business based on the quality of a product, but on a historical financial dependency that they helped establish.
So GW are taking advantage of the historical strength of their product and their market share to consolidate their profits and cut out the third party trade partners. Hmm... still just seems like business to me. Is it mean? Yes. Does that matter to shareholders? Not a jot. If you eliminate emotion from this, you're left with very little to talk about.
I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:
Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.
So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.
Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.
It would be really nice if you included who said that. Without context its pretty meaningless.
I could easily quote sentences from either council which if assumed as fact would damn the other side.
From the tone of the quotes, it seems like he is reading GW's attorney allegations...
I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:
Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.
So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.
Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.
It would be really nice if you included who said that. Without context its pretty meaningless.
I could easily quote sentences from either council which if assumed as fact would damn the other side.
See the part where I said it was from THE MAIN COURT DOCUMENT? Yes I know caps are impolite but I thought I would it clear this time since you missed it the first time.
You need to read the question more carefully. You told me where it was written I asked who said it, if you look closely you will find that text is from the GW legal teams statement on how the Judge should interpret the juries decision. Context in these things is very important.
Edit. The quote is from the "joint status for entry of judgment" document.
I wasn't aware I had to disprove every sale made at every GW register ever.in the history or mankind. I only mentioned that fan backlash hasn't been an issue as it relates to prices except in the case of CSM box set. Customers leaving because of steadily increasing prices is something else, although I do think that happens as well. It's just that fan backlash, as it pertains to feedback and social media criticism, doen't seem to have much of an effect on GW.
I am not sure what you want to prove or disprove, but this just wasn't it.
Indeed, this forum is filled with hundreds of fans claiming GW would make a hell of a lot of more money if they dropped prices a bit and made the hobby more accessible.
Either way, their pricing is entirely unrelated to the discussion of negative online-feedback, so whatever you wanted to counterpoint or not, it's baffling that you brought up prices.
As said, there are plenty of studies that have explored the significant costs of negative backlash for other companies. Some (estimated) 180 Million for United Airlines (despite them not making airplane tickets any cheaper). Some estimated 30 Million (and the first every quarterly loss in the companies history) for Starbucks (despite them not making their coffee cheaper) and their "dipper well" scandal.
There is no reason to assume that GW is somehow different than all other companies on this planet?
GW just might be. But since we can't prove that, the prudent assumption would be that ... like 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all other businesses on this planet, they are no exception and take financial losses when their brand is tarnished.
The economist's depiction of deadweight loss to efficiency that monopolies cause
Article 102 is aimed at preventing undertakings who hold a dominant position in a market from abusing that position to the detriment of consumers. It provides that,
"Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.
This can mean,
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts."
First it is necessary to determine whether a firm is dominant, or whether it behaves "to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumer."[16] Under EU law, very large market shares raise a presumption that a firm is dominant,[17] which may be rebuttable.[18] If a firm has a dominant position, because it has beyond a 39.7% market share[19] then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market"[20] Same as with collusive conduct, market shares are determined with reference to the particular market in which the firm and product in question is sold. Then although the lists are seldom closed,[21] certain categories of abusive conduct are usually prohibited under the country's legislation. For instance, limiting production at a shipping port by refusing to raise expenditure and update technology could be abusive.[22] Tying one product into the sale of another can be considered abuse too, being restrictive of consumer choice and depriving competitors of outlets. This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission[23] leading to an eventual fine of €497 million for including its Windows Media Player with the Microsoft Windows platform. A refusal to supply a facility essential for all businesses attempting to compete can constitute an abuse. An example was a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[24] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated.
I still don't think competition legislation is particularly relevant to this case - if it were, people would be using it - and besides, any industry you consider GW to be in, they're competing with various healthy competitors. Miniatures? Mantic and PP. Retail? Please. Plenty of other products out there for WG and the like to sell. Or are we saying the industry is the "Selling GW products" industry? If it is, I can think of plenty of examples of companies that don't let other firms carry their products, particularly at the boutique level that GW currently identify themselves with.
Now, if GW start buying up all the plastic and resin production facilities on the globe so that other minis firms can't make plastic kits anymore, I'll write straight to the EU myself.
But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:
Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.
So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.
Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.
It would be really nice if you included who said that. Without context its pretty meaningless.
I could easily quote sentences from either council which if assumed as fact would damn the other side.
From the tone of the quotes, it seems like he is reading GW's attorney allegations...
Its from GWs statement in the main court document but it still says that they didn't mention the full $400,000 as claims to damages but merely presented what Chapterhouse made in sales.
EDIT: Sorry edit the above statement to say Chapterhouse made in sales. I originally said profit and thats not true.
dr_ether wrote: But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
Hmm, maybe you have a point there. I don't think that's the goal though. And those competitors can still sell their own stuff direct. If your competitors suffer because their retail channels were depending on YOUR products to survive, that's... well, I mean, it's convoluted. If you argue that, you could argue that you're not allowed to stop trading altogether because you're too big to stop. It would have to go to court for a judgement, I guess. Not at all convinced.
You need to read the question more carefully. You told me where it was written I asked who said it, if you look closely you will find that text is from the GW legal teams statement on how the Judge should interpret the juries decision. Context in these things is very important.
Edit. The quote is from the "joint status for entry of judgment" document.
Its from GWs statement in the main court document. However it was cited because some people claimed that GW was going for a suit of $400,000. This shows that GWs claim isn;'t that they were shuing for $400,000 but merely presented the profits that Chapterhouse made. Its still a necessary quote to make.
Edit: Sorry the $400,000 isn't a claim on profit. It is a claim on sales.
dr_ether wrote: But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
Hmm, maybe you have a point there. I don't think that's the goal though. And those competitors can still sell their own stuff direct. If your competitors suffer because their retail channels were depending on YOUR products to survive, that's... well, I mean, it's convoluted. If you argue that, you could argue that you're not allowed to stop trading altogether because you're too big to stop. It would have to go to court for a judgement, I guess. Not at all convinced.
Hence the highlighted case,
A refusal to supply a facility essential for all businesses attempting to compete can constitute an abuse. An example was a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[24] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated
So the question would be 'How important is Wayland Games for the supply of other games'. In the case of PP stuff, maybe not too bad, but for other companies it could be quite significant.
dr_ether wrote: But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
Hmm, maybe you have a point there. I don't think that's the goal though. And those competitors can still sell their own stuff direct. If your competitors suffer because their retail channels were depending on YOUR products to survive, that's... well, I mean, it's convoluted. If you argue that, you could argue that you're not allowed to stop trading altogether because you're too big to stop. It would have to go to court for a judgement, I guess. Not at all convinced.
Hence the highlighted case,
A refusal to supply a facility essential for all businesses attempting to compete can constitute an abuse. An example was a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[24] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated
So the question would be 'How important is Wayland Games for the supply of other games'. In the case of PP stuff, maybe not too bad, but for other companies it could be quite significant.
No, I think using that line to back up your point is seriously tenuous. The example is a raw material vital in the production of a competitor's product, not the supply of a retail product which a competitors' retail channels presently make a lot of their money from. They're totally different.
So it is anti-competitive to act in the way GW does, to refuse trade, if they knowingly understand that doing so collapses a business that has a historic dependence on their products, because that business has recently also taken to selling competing products.
This is why it would actually be worth bring it up with the OFT.
Sorry, once again this is a category error. Your wikipedia quote doesn't support your case.
GW does not restrict competition - there is no evidence that they penalise retailers for stocking other brands. That is, in the main, what anti-competitive practices are. If you're making an allegation that GW makes it harder for people like Wayland to compete, then what you're really discussing is Price Fixing. The Wikipedia entry is linked - good luck with that one.
An online store is a major distributor for company A.
Said online store also distributes for company B. This one makes up a large amount of their revenue.
Company B can act, using its market dominance in a manner that shuts down the online store and so shuts out sales of company A. In effect ceasing competition, not by how customers make their choices, but by removing a means for customers to even make a choice.
dr_ether wrote: But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
Hmm, maybe you have a point there. I don't think that's the goal though. And those competitors can still sell their own stuff direct. If your competitors suffer because their retail channels were depending on YOUR products to survive, that's... well, I mean, it's convoluted. If you argue that, you could argue that you're not allowed to stop trading altogether because you're too big to stop. It would have to go to court for a judgement, I guess. Not at all convinced.
Hence the highlighted case,
A refusal to supply a facility essential for all businesses attempting to compete can constitute an abuse. An example was a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[24] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated
So the question would be 'How important is Wayland Games for the supply of other games'. In the case of PP stuff, maybe not too bad, but for other companies it could be quite significant.
I think your argument here is stating is that becuase WG could be badly affected by GW not stocking them with their products that this would then mean that other companies could be adversely affected.
Well it goes back to what I said earlier. GW has overheads for both shops and for future tech. If you're a competitor and you don't own stores to sell your stuff in and the stores that you do sell your products in go bust then perhaps you should have invested into selling your own stuff effectively to begin with.
In this day and age the internet is where buisness is being done now. Effectively as long as you've got an online store then you have the necessities to run a buisness. Sure you could sell more if you're stocked in additional places, including shops but its not necessary for your product to appear in shop in order to run a buisness.
At the end of the day this is buisness competition. Don't be fooled into thinking that every other company in the world does not do this. Every other company in the world does do this. They look at their competitors and then they think to themselves, how can I take their part of the pie away from them. Sure its best to do this in a legal manner but I don't think any of us here are qualified to speak whether refraining to stock indpendent stickists with your own product can be considered an illegal activity.
An online store is a major distributor for company A.
Said online store also distributes for company B. This one makes up a large amount of their revenue.
Company B can act, using its market dominance in a manner that shuts down the online store and so shuts out sales of company A. In effect ceasing competition, not by how customers make their choices, but by removing a means for customers to even make a choice.
Again, I'm afraid this is a meaningless argument that misses the point. If GW are imposing particular terms on WG, it's demonstrably aimed at controlling access to their own product, rather than to push out competing product.
But if access to their product hampers a competing product i.e. causes the distributor to shut down, then GWs intentions matter little if that is the result.
Bull0 wrote: No, I think using that line to back up your point is seriously tenuous. The example is a raw material vital in the production of a competitor's product, not the supply of a retail product which a competitors' retail channels presently make a lot of their money from. They're totally different.
Here I have something you may be interested in. You know other people were telling that Roman numerals blah, blah along with shoulder padsblah, blah, blah couldn't be trademarked, etc, etc. Well read this from the Judgement:
Chapterhouse has been found to infringe Games Workshop’s copyrights with respect to the following forty-nine products (product numbers refer to numbering in Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits 1020 and 1021): Skull or Chaplain Head or Bit for Power Armor (product 3); Selected Shoulder pads: “Terminator pad for Exorcist Space Marine,” “Power Armour Pad for Exorcist,” one of the “Sawblade Shoulder Pad & Jewel” pads, “Shoulder Pad for Serpent or Iron Snakes - Terminator,” “Shoulder Pad for Serpent or Iron Snakes – Tactical,” “Shoulder Pad w/ skull and flames - tactical”, “Shoulder Pad w/ Studs and Skull for 28mm marine - Tactical”,“Shoulder Pads for Chalice or Soul Drinker – Tactical,” “Shoulder Pads for Chalice or Soul Drinker – Terminator,” “Hammer of Dorn Power Armor Pad,” “Hammer of Dorn Terminator Pad,” “Power Armor Shoulder Pad for Scythes of the Emperor,” “Scythes of the Emperor Terminator Shoulder Pad” (Products 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 149, 150,153, 154); Assault Shoulder pad with number VII and VIII, Devastator marine shoulder pad with IX and X, Tactical shoulder pad with I, II, III, IV, IV, and VI (Products 46, 47, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62); Crested shoulder pad (Product 49); “Generic Power Armour Shoulder Pad” and “Smooth Shoulder Pad for 28mm tactical – marine” (Products 54, 55); “Banded Tech Pad” and “Banded Armor Pad” compatible with power armor and terminator armor (Products 68, 73, 74); Studded rimmed shoulder pad MKV, MK I Heresy Era for 28mm Marines “Thunder Armor” shoulder pad, studded power armor pad for MK 5 (Products 75, 78, 80); Tervigon conversion kit (Product 37); Heresy Era Jump Pack (Product 76); Spikey heresy heads (Product 79); Wolf Rhino Conversion Kit #1 and Wolf Rhino Conversion Kit #2 (Products 82, 104); Iron Snake conversion kit for Rhino (Product 106); Doomseer Iyanar Duanna (Product 108); Gun Halberd (Product 112); Conversion Beamer Servo Harness (Product 113); Armana'serq Scorpion Warrior Princess (Product 123); Open-Fisted power claws and Closed-Fisted power claws (Products 132, 133); TRU Scale Knights Praetorius “Order of the Empress’s Tears” Conversion Kit and TRU-Scale Knight Praetorius Conversion Kit (Products 142, 143); “Shrike Conversion Kit” (Product 159); Dark Elf Arch
Torturess (Product 160).
Did you notice quite a few shoulder pads with designs on that list?
You need to read the question more carefully. You told me where it was written I asked who said it, if you look closely you will find that text is from the GW legal teams statement on how the Judge should interpret the juries decision. Context in these things is very important.
Edit. The quote is from the "joint status for entry of judgment" document.
Its from GWs statement in the main court document. However it was cited because some people claimed that GW was going for a suit of $400,000. This shows that GWs claim isn;'t that they were shuing for $400,000 but merely presented the profits that Chapterhouse made. Its still a necessary quote to make.
Edit: Sorry the $400,000 isn't a claim on profit. It is a claim on sales.
Made by GW council in a document concerned heavily with convincing a judge to declare a $25k award as a victory written after the verdict was in. Gw council want to make it look like they got a good award relative to what they asked for.
This is why the context matters, had it been a statement by the judge at the start of the trial it would be a lot less dubious.
A much better thing to quote would be the text from the original complaint although I expect it will be understandably vague. After all if you were to ask for 100% of the profits and the plaintiff claims they broke even you would get nothing(I assume). In the UK many small businesses report zero earnings for tax purposes using any leftover money as reinvestment or owner salaries.
You need to read the question more carefully. You told me where it was written I asked who said it, if you look closely you will find that text is from the GW legal teams statement on how the Judge should interpret the juries decision. Context in these things is very important.
Edit. The quote is from the "joint status for entry of judgment" document.
Its from GWs statement in the main court document. However it was cited because some people claimed that GW was going for a suit of $400,000. This shows that GWs claim isn;'t that they were shuing for $400,000 but merely presented the profits that Chapterhouse made. Its still a necessary quote to make.
Edit: Sorry the $400,000 isn't a claim on profit. It is a claim on sales.
Made by GW council in a document concerned heavily with convincing a judge to declare a $25k award as a victory written after the verdict was in. Gw council want to make it look like they got a good award relative to what they asked for.
What I am getting at is that people were saying that GW wanted $400,000 but only got £25,000. The court documents clearly show that $25,000 is what GW requested at the end of the case and thats why they only got $25,000. Yes, this was influenced by the outcome of the case but I wanted to point out that nowhere in this case that GW was denied an award of $400,000. It was an award they claimed for after all facts of the case had been delivered on both sides.
This is why the context matters, had it been a statement by the judge at the start of the trial it would be a lot less dubious.
There is nothing dubious about it. In their statement they made a claim to the court that the $400,000 were what they considered the sales from Chapterhouse.
A much better thing to quote would be the text from the original complaint although I expect it will be understandably vague. After all if you were to ask for 100% of the profits and the plaintiff claims they broke even you would get nothing(I assume). In the UK many small businesses report zero earnings for tax purposes using any leftover money as reinvestment or owner salaries.
Its understandably vague because of course you're going to change your claim for damages depending on the outcome of the case. There is nothing dubious about this.
its not the "courts documents" its how the layer of each side suggest the judge to write his statement.
In any case the only reason I brought the CHS and it was in topic with this thread is the extend they are willing to not obey law, bend rules and use underhanded tactics to achieve their goals and to illustrate how unsupported the majority of their claims are when they threaten somebody legally.
The whole discussion about the case is off topic and your attempts to discredit posters arguments and worries by nitpicking quotes from a case you admit never followed, without context of time events, decisions and what the thing you quote is, is questionable.
You need to read the question more carefully. You told me where it was written I asked who said it, if you look closely you will find that text is from the GW legal teams statement on how the Judge should interpret the juries decision. Context in these things is very important.
Edit. The quote is from the "joint status for entry of judgment" document.
Its from GWs statement in the main court document. However it was cited because some people claimed that GW was going for a suit of $400,000. This shows that GWs claim isn;'t that they were shuing for $400,000 but merely presented the profits that Chapterhouse made. Its still a necessary quote to make.
Edit: Sorry the $400,000 isn't a claim on profit. It is a claim on sales.
Made by GW council in a document concerned heavily with convincing a judge to declare a $25k award as a victory written after the verdict was in. Gw council want to make it look like they got a good award relative to what they asked for.
What I am getting at is that people were saying that GW wanted $400,000 but only got £25,000. The court documents clearly show that $25,000 is what GW requested at the end of the case and thats why they only got $25,000. Yes, this was influenced by the outcome of the case but I wanted to point out that nowhere in this case that GW was denied an award of $400,000. It was an award they claimed for after all facts of the case had been delivered on both sides.
This is why the context matters, had it been a statement by the judge at the start of the trial it would be a lot less dubious.
There is nothing dubious about it. In their statement they made a claim to the court that the $400,000 were what they considered the sales from Chapterhouse.
A much better thing to quote would be the text from the original complaint although I expect it will be understandably vague. After all if you were to ask for 100% of the profits and the plaintiff claims they broke even you would get nothing(I assume). In the UK many small businesses report zero earnings for tax purposes using any leftover money as reinvestment or owner salaries.
Its understandably vague because of course you're going to change your claim for damages depending on the outcome of the case. There is nothing dubious about this.
At
trial, Chapterhouse won on the majority of claims. And although the jury awarded $25,000 to
Games Workshop, that was a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of dollars Games Workshop
had initially sought. Far from showing it prevailed, the fact that Games Workshop was forced to
make a demand for that small amount after years of litigation confirms it did not prevail.
Same document. That is why the context matters, who said what and why. Taking one sides version as gospel is unwise. My quote is from page 8 and is part of the chapterhouse submission.
Side note didn't anyone ever tell them not to start sentences with "And".
PsychoticStorm wrote: its not the "courts documents" its how the layer of each side suggest the judge to write his statement.
In any case the only reason I brought the CHS and it was in topic with this thread is the extend they are willing to not obey law, bend rules and use underhanded tactics to achieve their goals and to illustrate how unsupported the majority of their claims are when they threaten somebody legally.
The whole discussion about the case is off topic and your attempts to discredit posters arguments and worries by nitpicking quotes from a case you admit never followed, without context of time events, decisions and what the thing you quote is, is questionable.
PsychoticStorm wrote: its not the "courts documents" its how the layer of each side suggest the judge to write his statement.
In any case the only reason I brought the CHS and it was in topic with this thread is the extend they are willing to not obey law, bend rules and use underhanded tactics to achieve their goals and to illustrate how unsupported the majority of their claims are when they threaten somebody legally.
The whole discussion about the case is off topic and your attempts to discredit posters arguments and worries by nitpicking quotes from a case you admit never followed, without context of time events, decisions and what the thing you quote is, is questionable.
The CHS thing was never on-topic, face it.
The "CHS thing" was only brought up to disprove your claims:
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
By presenting not only a case where GW pursued legal action where they weren't "in the right" in the vast majorities of those claims, by demonstrating that when it serves their purpose they are perfectly capable of acting in an unethical and borderline illegal fashion and also to make the point that "I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway. ", isn't really a viable option, in most circumstances, to a small company fighting a relative giant such as GW because of the costs associated with a legal battle of this nature.
PhantomViper wrote: Its nice to have someone with actual experience in European law in here but could you expand on this a bit please?
Why do you say that the contractual restriction due to Wayland's association with a 3rd party (BoW) is a contractual matter and not in violation of section e)?
Because it seems like that section was written specifically for a case like this, a supplier is using its dominant position to enforce a contractual restriction on a client that would put them at a severe competitive disadvantage in the market place unless they accept supplementary obligations that have no connection to the contract itself.
Sure. I'll try to keep this brief, understandable and to the point.
Firstly, you've dug up what is basically anti-trust law. Teleologically, Article 101 is meant to prohibit market disruptions by cartels or monopolies. We are not dealing with a market disruption here, as the consumer's access to GW products at their regular prices would not even be hindered if Wayland closed down. So, in simple words, you're in the wrong field of law.
Secondly, Section e) has a different intent to how you are reading it. Having read the English version for the first time when making my post, I have to admit that it's a very understandable mistake as English is just such a horribly imprecise language (no offense intended towards native speakers), but if you either read the Guidelines of the European Commission on the interpretation of Article 101 or, like me, have the benefit of reading the authentic text in another language (in my case, German), it'll be more clear.
"Supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts" (relevant part bolded) means to tell you that anything you would not expect to be part of a certain type of contract (here: sales) MAY fall under Article 101 IF the other conditions are met. Imposing pre-release non-dissemination clauses upon contractors is indeed very much "commercial usage" (think of Apple's pre-release secrecy or the automotive industry in regards to new designs), and the seller's interest to market their goods as effectively as possible (here: "create a buzz, hype") justifies such clauses as being a "natural" part of selling something.
Not everything that is not part of the essentialia negotii is "unconnected" to the subject of a contract - indeed, it's rather hard to come up with (reasonable) examples where this is the case. For Article 101, such examples can only be found if you keep the law's intent in mind: Information exchange, agreements on R&D, production or purchasing agreements, commercialisation agreements, standardisation agreements. If I'm allowed to quib: Big Business stuff, not toy soldiers.
Thirdly, and this also goes out to dr_ether, GW is neither in a dominant market position nor a monopoly. The market we're talking about is toys. GW MAY have a market share of more than 40% in the "wargaming miniatures" market, which MIGHT be deemed a valid definition if we found a few geeky judges who are willing to stretch, which in turn INDICATES (not equals) a dominant market position. They still can not control prices, consumers have no need to buy from them, they can not and do not use their market position to eliminate competition etc. etc., so any such accusation would stand on awfully flimsy legs.
All this means that we are facing the question whether GW's terms of trade (which are an integral part of the sales contract and thus make the unwanted dissemination of information a contractual matter, not one of competition law or copyright law) are "fair". My expertise ends here, as I cannot possibly judge what a UK court would deem fair. If this came to an Austrian court, it would be found that it is entirely within GW's rights to demand that all their goods remain secret to third parties until the designated release date (again, I want to stress this, quite standard procedure really) and to demand that this obligation is also bound to any subsidiaries.
The subject of any civil proceedings would be whether GW's accusations of Wayland sharing information with BoW was substantially believable, and whether BoW is a subsidiary of Wayland. From here on, it becomes a question whether GW acted in breach of their contract with Wayland and in good faith, not whether they were in breach of law.
Beyond a reference it is, if you want to comment on the case and how you perceive the facts and what the courts have decided till the appeals time go to its thread and comment your harts out.
Here we discuss on GW using underhanded tactics to push people and companies they shouldn't to do their biding.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Beyond a reference it is, if you want to comment on the case and how you perceive the facts and what the courts have decided till the appeals time go to its thread and comment your harts out.
Here we discuss on GW using underhanded tactics to push people and companies they shouldn't to do their biding.
Here we discuss BoW cutting ties with WG over GW legal letters and GW's trade terms with WG. If you want to comment on "GW's underhanded tactics to push people and companies they shouldn't to do their bidding" start a new thread, preferably not in News & Rumours.
PsychoticStorm wrote: its not the "courts documents" its how the layer of each side suggest the judge to write his statement.
In any case the only reason I brought the CHS and it was in topic with this thread is the extend they are willing to not obey law, bend rules and use underhanded tactics to achieve their goals and to illustrate how unsupported the majority of their claims are when they threaten somebody legally.
The whole discussion about the case is off topic and your attempts to discredit posters arguments and worries by nitpicking quotes from a case you admit never followed, without context of time events, decisions and what the thing you quote is, is questionable.
The CHS thing was never on-topic, face it.
The "CHS thing" was only brought up to disprove your claims:
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
By presenting not only a case where GW pursued legal action where they weren't "in the right" in the vast majorities of those claims, by demonstrating that when it serves their purpose they are perfectly capable of acting in an unethical and borderline illegal fashion and also to make the point that "I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway. ", isn't really a viable option, in most circumstances, to a small company fighting a relative giant such as GW because of the costs associated with a legal battle of this nature.
You're going to have to explain how a completely separate civil legal proceeding has anything to do with what I said, because I don't begin to understand where the link is other than that what I said isn't totally defamatory of GW and the CHS thing is an example where GW were kind of jerks (or totally justifiably defending their copyright, as is their responsibility to their shareholders, depending on how big of a bleeding heart you are). Or, that people don't pursue legal action when they have recourse because "it's too expensive" (I've made my feelings on that argument clear above too, by the way - I don't have any sympathy for it, basically. If anything I think to not take legal action when you have recourse is massively irresponsible and damaging, particularly if you then throw around claims like "We're being bullied").
Bull0 wrote: Or, that people don't pursue legal action when they have recourse because "it's too expensive" (I've made my feelings on that argument clear above too, by the way - I don't have any sympathy for it, basically. If anything I think to not take legal action when you have recourse is massively irresponsible and damaging, particularly if you then throw around claims like "We're being bullied").
May God preserve your naivety by never putting you in such a situation (honestly).
I see legal bullying by a massively stronger party on a weekly basis, and this is not hyperbole. I have seen people lose their flats, their financial existence and their mental health over it. I have a lot of sympathy for it, and I'm not sure whether you are cynical or just argumentative.
Bull0 wrote: Or, that people don't pursue legal action when they have recourse because "it's too expensive" (I've made my feelings on that argument clear above too, by the way - I don't have any sympathy for it, basically. If anything I think to not take legal action when you have recourse is massively irresponsible and damaging, particularly if you then throw around claims like "We're being bullied").
May God preserve your naivety by never putting you in such a situation (honestly).
I see legal bullying by a massively stronger party on a weekly basis, and this is not hyperbole. I have seen people lose their flats, their financial existence and their mental health over it. I have a lot of sympathy for it, and I'm not sure whether you are cynical or just argumentative.
Oh I understand that legal proceedings are hella expensive and I have much more sympathy when it's individuals - but for businesses I see a distinction, particularly if those businesses are going to publically allude to wrongdoing on the part of the other party but not take it to court. I did say "people" rather than "businesses", I probably should've been a lot clearer there.
Bull0 wrote: Or, that people don't pursue legal action when they have recourse because "it's too expensive" (I've made my feelings on that argument clear above too, by the way - I don't have any sympathy for it, basically. If anything I think to not take legal action when you have recourse is massively irresponsible and damaging, particularly if you then throw around claims like "We're being bullied").
May God preserve your naivety by never putting you in such a situation (honestly).
I see legal bullying by a massively stronger party on a weekly basis, and this is not hyperbole. I have seen people lose their flats, their financial existence and their mental health over it. I have a lot of sympathy for it, and I'm not sure whether you are cynical or just argumentative.
+1 (to the sentiment, thankfully I don't share the experience)
While "if you're in the right, take action" is a technically correct argument (and we all know, technically is the best sort of correct!) there are myriad circumstances where that simply isn't possible or viable.
PhantomViper wrote: Its nice to have someone with actual experience in European law in here but could you expand on this a bit please?
Why do you say that the contractual restriction due to Wayland's association with a 3rd party (BoW) is a contractual matter and not in violation of section e)?
Because it seems like that section was written specifically for a case like this, a supplier is using its dominant position to enforce a contractual restriction on a client that would put them at a severe competitive disadvantage in the market place unless they accept supplementary obligations that have no connection to the contract itself.
Sure. I'll try to keep this brief, understandable and to the point.
Firstly, you've dug up what is basically anti-trust law. Teleologically, Article 101 is meant to prohibit market disruptions by cartels or monopolies. We are not dealing with a market disruption here, as the consumer's access to GW products at their regular prices would not even be hindered if Wayland closed down. So, in simple words, you're in the wrong field of law.
Secondly, Section e) has a different intent to how you are reading it. Having read the English version for the first time when making my post, I have to admit that it's a very understandable mistake as English is just such a horribly imprecise language (no offense intended towards native speakers), but if you either read the Guidelines of the European Commission on the interpretation of Article 101 or, like me, have the benefit of reading the authentic text in another language (in my case, German), it'll be more clear.
"Supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts" (relevant part bolded) means to tell you that anything you would not expect to be part of a certain type of contract (here: sales) MAY fall under Article 101 IF the other conditions are met. Imposing pre-release non-dissemination clauses upon contractors is indeed very much "commercial usage" (think of Apple's pre-release secrecy or the automotive industry in regards to new designs), and the seller's interest to market their goods as effectively as possible (here: "create a buzz, hype") justifies such clauses as being a "natural" part of selling something.
Not everything that is not part of the essentialia negotii is "unconnected" to the subject of a contract - indeed, it's rather hard to come up with (reasonable) examples where this is the case. For Article 101, such examples can only be found if you keep the law's intent in mind: Information exchange, agreements on R&D, production or purchasing agreements, commercialisation agreements, standardisation agreements. If I'm allowed to quib: Big Business stuff, not toy soldiers.
Thirdly, and this also goes out to dr_ether, GW is neither in a dominant market position nor a monopoly. The market we're talking about is toys. GW MAY have a market share of more than 40% in the "wargaming miniatures" market, which MIGHT be deemed a valid definition if we found a few geeky judges who are willing to stretch, which in turn INDICATES (not equals) a dominant market position. They still can not control prices, consumers have no need to buy from them, they can not and do not use their market position to eliminate competition etc. etc., so any such accusation would stand on awfully flimsy legs.
All this means that we are facing the question whether GW's terms of trade (which are an integral part of the sales contract and thus make the unwanted dissemination of information a contractual matter, not one of competition law or copyright law) are "fair". My expertise ends here, as I cannot possibly judge what a UK court would deem fair. If this came to an Austrian court, it would be found that it is entirely within GW's rights to demand that all their goods remain secret to third parties until the designated release date (again, I want to stress this, quite standard procedure really) and to demand that this obligation is also bound to any subsidiaries.
The subject of any civil proceedings would be whether GW's accusations of Wayland sharing information with BoW was substantially believable, and whether BoW is a subsidiary of Wayland. From here on, it becomes a question whether GW acted in breach of their contract with Wayland and in good faith, not whether they were in breach of law.
First, I wan't to thank you for taking the time to reply so: thank you very much.
Now, I understand that secrecy rules in contracts are pretty much the norm and perfectly legal, I work in a field where this type of NDA is allot more important than just "Toy Soldiers", what I fail to understand is how you can equate GW making sure that Wayland doesn't divulge their products before release (perfectly logical and legal), to GW saying that Wayland is responsible for a third party divulging said products before time? How is the behaviour of a third party relevant to a contract between party A and B?
Allod, as Phantom Viper said, thank you for your insight.
It appears then that no matter how crazy GW's decisions appear to be, if a Company "truly believes" that a trading partner is passing information on to another party then that Company can impose penalties/ restrictions on that trading partner where they have already been stipulated in a contract..
Bull0 wrote: Or, that people don't pursue legal action when they have recourse because "it's too expensive" (I've made my feelings on that argument clear above too, by the way - I don't have any sympathy for it, basically. If anything I think to not take legal action when you have recourse is massively irresponsible and damaging, particularly if you then throw around claims like "We're being bullied").
May God preserve your naivety by never putting you in such a situation (honestly).
I see legal bullying by a massively stronger party on a weekly basis, and this is not hyperbole. I have seen people lose their flats, their financial existence and their mental health over it. I have a lot of sympathy for it, and I'm not sure whether you are cynical or just argumentative.
Oh I understand that legal proceedings are hella expensive and I have much more sympathy when it's individuals - but for businesses I see a distinction, particularly if those businesses are going to publically allude to wrongdoing on the part of the other party but not take it to court. I did say "people" rather than "businesses", I probably should've been a lot clearer there.
I don't think you understand, the amount of money is not cut back on spending money it is bankruptcy money for a company the size of wayland for anything but an open and shut case. For BOW it would undoubtly be throw everything away to make a point situation.
PhantomViper wrote: Now, I understand that secrecy rules in contracts are pretty much the norm and perfectly legal, I work in a field where this type of NDA is allot more important than just "Toy Soldiers", what I fail to understand is how you can equate GW making sure that Wayland doesn't divulge their products before release (perfectly logical and legal), to GW saying that Wayland is responsible for a third party divulging said products before time? How is the behaviour of a third party relevant to a contract between party A and B?
Didn't their "affiliation" include sharing staff between the two companies? Automatically Appended Next Post:
dragqueeninspace wrote: I don't think you understand, the amount of money is not cut back on spending money it is bankruptcy money for a company the size of wayland for anything but an open and shut case. For BOW it would undoubtly be throw everything away to make a point situation.
I understand perfectly, but personally I'm utterly self-destructive when it comes to my principles, and I'm not good at appreciating that not everyone is as crazy as I am.
First, I wan't to thank you for taking the time to reply so: thank you very much.
Now, I understand that secrecy rules in contracts are pretty much the norm and perfectly legal, I work in a field where this type of NDA is allot more important than just "Toy Soldiers", what I fail to understand is how you can equate GW making sure that Wayland doesn't divulge their products before release (perfectly logical and legal), to GW saying that Wayland is responsible for a third party divulging said products before time? How is the behaviour of a third party relevant to a contract between party A and B?
You're welcome!
GW says that Wayland is responsible for the action of this particular third party because GW claims that BoW is a subsidiary of Wayland, probably in terms of control rather than ownership. As I understand it, BoW used Wayland's office space and infrastructure, which is sufficient grounds to base such a claim on.
The relevant clause in GW's European Trade Terms is
"9.4 If any Affiliates of the Trade Account disseminate or otherwise make available to the public any information in respect of new release Products prior to any Advance Order Date in respect of such Products, then, for a period of 6 months, GW shall not despatch new release Products to that Trade Account until 30 days following the Global Release Date for such Products."
It appears then that no matter how crazy GW's decisions appear to be, if a Company "truly believes" that a trading partner is passing information on to another party then that Company can impose penalties/ restrictions on that trading partner where they have already been stipulated in a contract..
Yes, that's basically how it works. Evidence suffices as proof will often be impossible to obtain.
dragqueeninspace wrote: Same document. That is why the context matters, who said what and why. Taking one sides version as gospel is unwise. My quote is from page 8 and is part of the chapterhouse submission.
Side note didn't anyone ever tell them not to start sentences with "And".
All I was doing was showing GWs submission and what they stated in regards to what they finally claimed for. Also Chapterhouse could be, but not necessarily, be mistaken about the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They might have had the impression that GW were looking for that amount whereas GW were only claiming that the amount stated was the amount made in sales in items they were trying to claim for. Remember that legal issues are normally to be resolved between the two parties in deliberation.
EDIT: I have removed some parts and trimmed the post as recommended.
You need to read the question more carefully. You told me where it was written I asked who said it, if you look closely you will find that text is from the GW legal teams statement on how the Judge should interpret the juries decision. Context in these things is very important.
Edit. The quote is from the "joint status for entry of judgment" document.
Its from GWs statement in the main court document. However it was cited because some people claimed that GW was going for a suit of $400,000. This shows that GWs claim isn;'t that they were shuing for $400,000 but merely presented the profits that Chapterhouse made. Its still a necessary quote to make.
Edit: Sorry the $400,000 isn't a claim on profit. It is a claim on sales.
Made by GW council in a document concerned heavily with convincing a judge to declare a $25k award as a victory written after the verdict was in. Gw council want to make it look like they got a good award relative to what they asked for.
What I am getting at is that people were saying that GW wanted $400,000 but only got £25,000. The court documents clearly show that $25,000 is what GW requested at the end of the case and thats why they only got $25,000. Yes, this was influenced by the outcome of the case but I wanted to point out that nowhere in this case that GW was denied an award of $400,000. It was an award they claimed for after all facts of the case had been delivered on both sides.
This is why the context matters, had it been a statement by the judge at the start of the trial it would be a lot less dubious.
There is nothing dubious about it. In their statement they made a claim to the court that the $400,000 were what they considered the sales from Chapterhouse.
A much better thing to quote would be the text from the original complaint although I expect it will be understandably vague. After all if you were to ask for 100% of the profits and the plaintiff claims they broke even you would get nothing(I assume). In the UK many small businesses report zero earnings for tax purposes using any leftover money as reinvestment or owner salaries.
Its understandably vague because of course you're going to change your claim for damages depending on the outcome of the case. There is nothing dubious about this.
At
trial, Chapterhouse won on the majority of claims. And although the jury awarded $25,000 to
Games Workshop, that was a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of dollars Games Workshop
had initially sought. Far from showing it prevailed, the fact that Games Workshop was forced to
make a demand for that small amount after years of litigation confirms it did not prevail.
Same document. That is why the context matters, who said what and why. Taking one sides version as gospel is unwise. My quote is from page 8 and is part of the chapterhouse submission.
Side note didn't anyone ever tell them not to start sentences with "And".
All I was doing was showing GWs submission and what they stated in regards to what they finally claimed for. Also Chapterhouse could be, but not necessarily, be mistaken about the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They might have had the impression that GW were looking for that amount whereas GW were only claiming that the amount stated was the amount made in sales in items they were trying to claim for. Remember that legal issues are normally to be resolved between the two parties in deliberation.
You have messed up the quotes I didn't write that.
You posted a section of text and presented it as evidence to dispute somone elses assertion without citing the source correctly or disclosing that it was from a highly biased source. The way you presented it implied it was a statement by the court it is not. What you wrote has in the same document a contary statement by a simialrly biased party. I am not making claims about which is true I am saying you presented it in a misleading manner.
Yeah, sorry I just say that. I'm not sure whats happening.
You posted a section of text and presented it as evidence to dispute somone elses assertion without citing the source correctly or disclosing that it was from a highly biased source. The way you presented it implied it was a statement by the court it is not. What you wrote has in the same document a contary statement by a simialrly biased party. I am not making claims about which is true I am saying you presented it in a misleading manner.
If I did I didn't mean to. I will only apologise if I didn't make myself clear on the matter. The claim that was made about GW looking for hundreds of thousands of dollars came from the the Chapterhouse statement. I just wantted to show that this was denied.
EDIT: I have trimmed the post down as it was getting complicated.
Oh I understand that legal proceedings are hella expensive and I have much more sympathy when it's individuals - but for businesses I see a distinction, particularly if those businesses are going to publically allude to wrongdoing on the part of the other party but not take it to court. I did say "people" rather than "businesses", I probably should've been a lot clearer there.
Being in business doesn't suddenly mean having access to large amounts of cash.
Beasts of war's monthly turnover (that is turnover, not profit) would likely pay for less than a days worth of the sort of legal team they would require to get into this fight with Games Workshop.
Oh I understand that legal proceedings are hella expensive and I have much more sympathy when it's individuals - but for businesses I see a distinction, particularly if those businesses are going to publically allude to wrongdoing on the part of the other party but not take it to court. I did say "people" rather than "businesses", I probably should've been a lot clearer there.
Being in business doesn't suddenly mean having access to large amounts of cash.
Beasts of war's monthly turnover (that is turnover, not profit) would likely pay for less than a days worth of the sort of legal team they would require to get into this fight with Games Workshop.
dragqueeninspace wrote: I don't think you understand, the amount of money is not cut back on spending money it is bankruptcy money for a company the size of wayland for anything but an open and shut case. For BOW it would undoubtly be throw everything away to make a point situation.
I understand perfectly, but personally I'm utterly self-destructive when it comes to my principles, and I'm not good at appreciating that not everyone is as crazy as I am.
Sorry, the quote tags in my last two messages are all jumbled up and I don't know how to fix them. I haven't got the time to fix them just now either as I am just going. I will try to fix them later on.
First, I wan't to thank you for taking the time to reply so: thank you very much.
Now, I understand that secrecy rules in contracts are pretty much the norm and perfectly legal, I work in a field where this type of NDA is allot more important than just "Toy Soldiers", what I fail to understand is how you can equate GW making sure that Wayland doesn't divulge their products before release (perfectly logical and legal), to GW saying that Wayland is responsible for a third party divulging said products before time? How is the behaviour of a third party relevant to a contract between party A and B?
You're welcome!
GW says that Wayland is responsible for the action of this particular third party because GW claims that BoW is a subsidiary of Wayland, probably in terms of control rather than ownership. As I understand it, BoW used Wayland's office space and infrastructure, which is sufficient grounds to base such a claim on.
The relevant clause in GW's European Trade Terms is
"9.4 If any Affiliates of the Trade Account disseminate or otherwise make available to the public any information in respect of new release Products prior to any Advance Order Date in respect of such Products, then, for a period of 6 months, GW shall not despatch new release Products to that Trade Account until 30 days following the Global Release Date for such Products."
Ok, I can see how GW can make that claim.
I still don't agree with that and think that Wayland and BoW could take the matter to court, but I'm not a lawyer and I am a known GW hater to booth!
Once again I would like to thank you for your time and expertise in explaining this to us.
You have messed up the quotes I didn't write that.
Yeah, sorry I just say that. I'm not sure whats happening.
You posted a section of text and presented it as evidence to dispute somone elses assertion without citing the source correctly or disclosing that it was from a highly biased source. The way you presented it implied it was a statement by the court it is not. What you wrote has in the same document a contary statement by a simialrly biased party. I am not making claims about which is true I am saying you presented it in a misleading manner.
If I did I didn't mean to. I will only apologise if I didn't make myself clear on the matter. The claim that was made about GW looking for hundreds of thousands of dollars came from the the Chapterhouse statement. I just wantted to show that this was denied.
^^^^^
Don't re-quote thirteen hundred posts. In a thread where the last quote (and the one before, and before that) are probably only a few posts above, it's unnecessary and it screws up, as it has there. Trim manually and just leave the last post and it's less likely to happen.
I still don't agree with that and think that Wayland and BoW could take the matter to court, but I'm not a lawyer and I am a known GW hater to booth!
Once again I would like to thank you for your time and expertise in explaining this to us.
GW doesn't have to take it to court, they just exercise the clause of their trade agreement which basically shuts the retailer down from being able to sell GW products easily and depending on the impact of the % of sales of the business, the 6 months of punishment could drive them under.
It would be upon Wayland to take GW to court to claim the trade agreement is unfair, illegal or should be reversed. That is hard to prove, and a huge financial burden, and GW can then choose to not allow a trade agreement, so a lawsuit is the equivalent of 'no more GW sales'.
It puts retailers in a 'no-win' solution which results in them bending to GW's will or totally stopping sale of GW products.
GW doesn't have to take it to court, they just exercise the clause of their trade agreement which basically shuts the retailer down from being able to sell GW products easily and depending on the impact of the % of sales of the business, the 6 months of punishment could drive them under.
It would be upon Wayland to take GW to court to claim the trade agreement is unfair, illegal or should be reversed. That is hard to prove, and a huge financial burden, and GW can then choose to not allow a trade agreement, so a lawsuit is the equivalent of 'no more GW sales'.
It puts retailers in a 'no-win' solution which results in them bending to GW's will or totally stopping sale of GW products.
And even if BoW/Wayland won a case on that basis, GW still has the right to sell to whomever they wish. Ok, for the duration of the 'current' trade agreement GW would presumably have to supply Wayland, but all it would take would be for GW to either wait for the end of term (of the current agreement/contract) and refuse to offer a new one to Wayland, or possibly to come up with a 'substantial' change which would require all retailers to sign a new agreement and refuse to send Wayland one.
All of a sudden Wayland has no more access to GW product except through a third party. This would drive up the cost of stocking GW product for Wayland, or remove it from their inventory completely. I also wouldn't put it past GW to then alter the terms again so as to place any retailer supplying Wayland under increased strain.
As GW is historically the 'go-to' company for table top gaming, much larger than the companies responsible for "Infinity" and the other games mentioned here, then it is reasonable to presume that independant companies such as Wayland rely on a 50%+ turnover of GW product. It is up to them to decide if they can survive without that turnover and associated profit.
I suspect that, with GW's recent behaviour towards their independant stockists, as soon as each one has reached the point where dropping GW from their supplier list is feasible, they will do so. It's certainly what I would do, but only they can decide whether it's feasible for them or not as they need to consider more than just turnover and profit. Customer reaction, shelf space, and much more need to be taken into account.
GW doesn't have to take it to court, they just exercise the clause of their trade agreement which basically shuts the retailer down from being able to sell GW products easily and depending on the impact of the % of sales of the business, the 6 months of punishment could drive them under.
It would be upon Wayland to take GW to court to claim the trade agreement is unfair, illegal or should be reversed. That is hard to prove, and a huge financial burden, and GW can then choose to not allow a trade agreement, so a lawsuit is the equivalent of 'no more GW sales'.
It puts retailers in a 'no-win' solution which results in them bending to GW's will or totally stopping sale of GW products.
And even if BoW/Wayland won a case on that basis, GW still has the right to sell to whomever they wish. Ok, for the duration of the 'current' trade agreement GW would presumably have to supply Wayland, but all it would take would be for GW to either wait for the end of term (of the current agreement/contract) and refuse to offer a new one to Wayland, or possibly to come up with a 'substantial' change which would require all retailers to sign a new agreement and refuse to send Wayland one.
All of a sudden Wayland has no more access to GW product except through a third party. This would drive up the cost of stocking GW product for Wayland, or remove it from their inventory completely. I also wouldn't put it past GW to then alter the terms again so as to place any retailer supplying Wayland under increased strain.
As GW is historically the 'go-to' company for table top gaming, much larger than the companies responsible for "Infinity" and the other games mentioned here, then it is reasonable to presume that independant companies such as Wayland rely on a 50%+ turnover of GW product. It is up to them to decide if they can survive without that turnover and associated profit.
I suspect that, with GW's recent behaviour towards their independant stockists, as soon as each one has reached the point where dropping GW from their supplier list is feasible, they will do so. It's certainly what I would do, but only they can decide whether it's feasible for them or not as they need to consider more than just turnover and profit. Customer reaction, shelf space, and much more need to be taken into account.
GW cannot refuse to deal with WG unless they do something wrong so waiting till the end of the trade deal would make no difference. It's been awhile since I studied but if I remember correctly the only way GW can refuse to supply someone who meets there criteria, is to do a forge world and not supply anyone including there own stores. Which is obviously not something there going to do as it would virtually be suicide unless they made other substantial changes.
^^^^^
Don't re-quote thirteen hundred posts. In a thread where the last quote (and the one before, and before that) are probably only a few posts above, it's unnecessary and it screws up, as it has there. Trim manually and just leave the last post and it's less likely to happen.
I have done as you have recommended. I was hesitant to do it at first because I didn't want to make it seem like I was purposefully removing parts of the post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SeanDrake wrote: GW cannot refuse to deal with WG unless they do something wrong so waiting till the end of the trade deal would make no difference. It's been awhile since I studied but if I remember correctly the only way GW can refuse to supply someone who meets there criteria, is to do a forge world and not supply anyone including there own stores. Which is obviously not something there going to do as it would virtually be suicide unless they made other substantial changes.
Can I ask a question since you know a bit about this kind of thing. Are GW in any way able to just supply there own stores and drop the independent stores completely or would this be illegal?
SeanDrake wrote: GW cannot refuse to deal with WG unless they do something wrong so waiting till the end of the trade deal would make no difference. It's been awhile since I studied but if I remember correctly the only way GW can refuse to supply someone who meets there criteria, is to do a forge world and not supply anyone including there own stores. Which is obviously not something there going to do as it would virtually be suicide unless they made other substantial changes.
Can I ask a question since you know a bit about this kind of thing. Are GW in any way able to just supply there own stores and drop the independent stores completely or would this be illegal?
That would be illegal as by law they have to treat all retail outlets equally so if it's sold in a gw store they have to offer it to independents, I believe this is the reason fw stuff is no longer sold in gw stores as well.
SeanDrake wrote: That would be illegal as by law they have to treat all retail outlets equally so if it's sold in a gw store they have to offer it to independents, I believe this is the reason fw stuff is no longer sold in gw stores as well.
The reason why I ask is because it shows a possible insight in how GW feel about this overall. I thought that GW weren't allowed to stop trading with the independents but I wasn't sure about that and I had seen others who said that they could stop trading with them if they really wanted to.
I'm thinking that perhaps GW don't like the indpendents at all because they consider them to eat away at too much of their profits in some fashion. Maybe they look at the indpendents as the reason on why they had downsize some of their stores, etc, etc. I'm just citing this as a possibility, not necessarily as fact.
SeanDrake wrote: That would be illegal as by law they have to treat all retail outlets equally so if it's sold in a gw store they have to offer it to independents, I believe this is the reason fw stuff is no longer sold in gw stores as well.
SeanDrake wrote: That would be illegal as by law they have to treat all retail outlets equally so if it's sold in a gw store they have to offer it to independents, I believe this is the reason fw stuff is no longer sold in gw stores as well.
I would be extremely surprised if that's the case.
Baragash wrote: I would be extremely surprised if that's the case.
From a legal sense it wouldn't make any sense to me since I consider that a company should have full rights to sell its own products but it would make sense in the way that GW deal with the independents.
They can stop supplying independent stores if they wan't to and just stick to their own stores. But they have to stop supplying all of them, they can't pick between one independent retailer or another (if they equally meet the same conditions in the trade agreement obviously).
But since GW has their own stores and supplies independent stores as well, they can't sell anything in their own stores that they don't sell to independent stores, hence why you don't have FW or Online Only items for sale in GW stores.
That being said, you have to realise that outside the UK, GW has a very minute number of stores and that the vast majority of their sales comes from independent retailers (60+% from what I've read).
I'd be really surprised if freedom of contract was completely abolished in the UK.
In all the European countries I have experience with, national competition law uses the concept of market power to determine how free you are in your choice of contract partners. If you are operating out of your garage, you can discriminate against retailers as much as you want, if you are Coca-Cola, you absolutely can't.
Naturally, most businesses are somewhere in between these two extremes, so there is no "yes or no answer".
In Austria, Germany or Switzerland, where I am up to date on publications on the matter, the relevant questions would be
What is Wayland Games? A toy retailer, a hobby retailer, a model retailer, a LFGS?
Would customers typically expect to find GW products at that venue?
How viable is it for said venue to continue business without GW products?
How strong is GW in terms of market share? What's the relevant market anyway?
How strong are GW's brands?
The list goes on and on. The number of retailers who sued to get a certain brand of shoes, handbags, cosmetics, you name it into their store on grounds of unfair competition and lost in court are legion.
Also, please don't forget that judges are just people, too. A judge will know L'Oreal, Pfizer, Louis Vuitton and Adidas and have a suspicion about their market power. He will in all probability never have heard of Games Workshop or even tabletop wargaming, so it will take a lot of effort to convince him that GW has enough power in a market he didn't even know existed to warrant the partial suspension of basic freedoms.
It usually simply saves a lot of headache to draft terms of trade that you apply to everyone equally so you're filtering out unwanted retailers ex ante.
I might be totally wrong and in the UK it's completely different. But I doubt it.
Allod wrote: I'd be really surprised if freedom of contract was completely abolished in the UK.
In all the European countries I have experience with, national competition law uses the concept of market power to determine how free you are in your choice of contract partners. If you are operating out of your garage, you can discriminate against retailers as much as you want, if you are Coca-Cola, you absolutely can't.
Naturally, most businesses are somewhere in between these two extremes, so there is no "yes or no answer".
In Austria, Germany or Switzerland, where I am up to date on publications on the matter, the relevant questions would be
What is Wayland Games? A toy retailer, a hobby retailer, a model retailer, a LFGS?
Would customers typically expect to find GW products at that venue?
How viable is it for said venue to continue business without GW products?
How strong is GW in terms of market share? What's the relevant market anyway?
How strong are GW's brands?
The list goes on and on. The number of retailers who sued to get a certain brand of shoes, handbags, cosmetics, you name it into their store on grounds of unfair competition and lost in court are legion.
Also, please don't forget that judges are just people, too. A judge will know L'Oreal, Pfizer, Louis Vuitton and Adidas and have a suspicion about their market power. He will in all probability never have heard of Games Workshop or even tabletop wargaming, so it will take a lot of effort to convince him that GW has enough power in a market he didn't even know existed to warrant the partial suspension of basic freedoms.
It usually simply saves a lot of headache to draft terms of trade that you apply to everyone equally so you're filtering out unwanted retailers ex ante.
I might be totally wrong and in the UK it's completely different. But I doubt it.
Thanks for your insight. Its good to have someone with some law knowledge helping us put this all into persepctive and explain what we see going on here.
So if I come up with a tabletop wargame and want to sell it, I have to sell it to any independant that asks to be able to? I don't think so.
It's my product and I decide who to sell it to. End of!
Likewise, if you come across an item in a store, with a price of, let's say, £2.99. The store owner says that it's been mis-priced and that is the price for the medium size whilst the product is a large one.
You do not have the right to demand that the item be sold for £2.99!
Don't confuse the fact that stores often will sell it at the lower price - THEY DON'T HAVE TO SELL ITTO YOU AT ALL!
Any store has the right to say to any customer, "Sorry, I'm withdrawing that item from sale." at any point up to where you have paid for it.
So GW has the right to decide who it trades with. It does NOT have to trade with ALL the independants or NONE of them.
Chris Clayton has just sculpted an amazing bust called "Hush". If I put in an order, he can refuse to sell me one FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER providing it is not coverd by discrimination laws. IE, he can't say "I won't sell to you because of your [sex, skin colour, religion, etc.].". He CAN say, "I just don't want to sell to you.".
If I were to set up a business to sell on Chris's works as an independant, and we both signed a trade agreement that he would supply me for a period of six months, then there is no legal way I can force him to continue supplying me after that time. Whether he offers me another agreement is soley at his discretion. Whether or not he had other independant stockists, or for whatever reason - provided that it wasn't a clear case of discrimination against me personally. He could just decide that he doesn't make enough money out of the deal and refuse to renew.
I don't know the exact situation for an open-ended agreement, but I don't suppose they are that common anyway.
EDIT: Partial Ninja by Allod.
I believe Allod is referring to cutting out all independants [I may be wrong, of course]. I am talking about GW having the basic right to decide which independants it does business with.
Conrad Turner wrote: So if I come up with a tabletop wargame and want to sell it, I have to sell it to any independant that asks to be able to? I don't think so.
It's my product and I decide who to sell it to. End of!
Likewise, if you come across an item in a store, with a price of, let's say, £2.99. The store owner says that it's been mis-priced and that is the price for the medium size whilst the product is a large one.
You do not have the right to demand that the item be sold for £2.99!
Don't confuse the fact that stores often will sell it at the lower price - THEY DON'T HAVE TO SELL ITTO YOU AT ALL!
Any store has the right to say to any customer, "Sorry, I'm withdrawing that item from sale." at any point up to where you have paid for it.
So GW has the right to decide who it trades with. It does NOT have to trade with ALL the independants or NONE of them.
Chris Clayton has just sculpted an amazing bust called "Hush". If I put in an order, he can refuse to sell me one FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER providing it is not coverd by discrimination laws. IE, he can't say "I won't sell to you because of your [sex, skin colour, religion, etc.].". He CAN say, "I just don't want to sell to you.".
If I were to set up a business to sell on Chris's works as an independant, and we both signed a trade agreement that he would supply me for a period of six months, then there is no legal way I can force him to continue supplying me after that time. Whether he offers me another agreement is soley at his discretion. Whether or not he had other independant stockists, or for whatever reason - provided that it wasn't a clear case of discrimination against me personally. He could just decide that he doesn't make enough money out of the deal and refuse to renew.
I don't know the exact situation for an open-ended agreement, but I don't suppose they are that common anyway.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Allod.
Allod did say he doesn't have much experience in UK law and he did admit that but he does have a good knowledge of law in some European countries (i.e. Austria, Switzerland, etc) and was giving his account about what companies could do in those countries. I have to say that I don't really envision UK law to be much different in this regard considering that the EU is pushing a common standard when it comes to trade.
He stated it depends on the size of the company and how mush of the market they control. There are certain laws that stop companies with monopolies from abusing them, so this is what we are discussing at this point.
EDIT: My apologies, I thought you're reply was aimed at Allod.
PhantomViper wrote: But since GW has their own stores and supplies independent stores as well, they can't sell anything in their own stores that they don't sell to independent stores, hence why you don't have FW or Online Only items for sale in GW stores.
[ ] So they couldn't sell the latest Eldar releases on launch day because a huge number of independants hadn't got the stuff they ordered? I must have missed that. [ / ]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarthOvious wrote: Allod did say he doesn't have much experience in UK law and he did admit that but he does have a good knowledge of law in some European countries (i.e. Austria, Switzerland, etc) and was giving his account about what companies could do in those countries. I have to say that I don't really envision UK law to be much different in this regard considering that the EU is pushing a common standard when it comes to trade.
He stated it depends on the size of the company and how mush of the market they control. There are certain laws that stop companies with monopolies from abusing them, so this is what we are discussing at this point.
EDIT: My apologies, I thought you're reply was aimed at Allod.
NP Darth. That's why I edited my post. I was replying to PhantomViper amongst others. Not picking out PV either, just he was the last to state that he thought they had to supply all independants or none. To stop supplying all the independants would give GW a monoply charge to answer. Not supplying WG would not. I assume if the worst came to pass, GW could just as easily hook up another independant and say "The market has not substantially changed. There are the same number of independants now as there were before." but WG would have lost out.
Conrad Turner wrote:
EDIT: Partial Ninja by Allod.
DarthOvious wrote:
EDIT: My apologies, I thought you're reply was aimed at Allod.
Conrad Turner wrote: I believe Allod is referring to cutting out all independants [I may be wrong, of course]. I am talking about GW having the basic right to decide which independants it does business with.
Ninja mayhem!
To clear this up: I said that by default, GW is allowed to reject any contract offer by any retailer, not just all of them (although this is an option). There will be restrictions depending on their amount of market power, but outside of court, nobody knows how far those would reach. Disclaimer: All this might not apply to the UK.
PhantomViper wrote: But since GW has their own stores and supplies independent stores as well, they can't sell anything in their own stores that they don't sell to independent stores, hence why you don't have FW or Online Only items for sale in GW stores.
[ ] So they couldn't sell the latest Eldar releases on launch day because a huge number of independants hadn't got the stuff they ordered? I must have missed that. [ / ]
There is a substantial difference between having ordered items and delays in the distribution / production preventing those items from arriving in time and not being allowed to order the items in the first place.
NP Darth. That's why I edited my post. I was replying to PhantomViper amongst others. Not picking out PV either, just he was the last to state that he thought they had to supply all independants or none. To stop supplying all the independants would give GW a monoply charge to answer. Not supplying WG would not. I assume if the worst came to pass, GW could just as easily hook up another independant and say "The market has not substantially changed. There are the same number of independants now as there were before." but WG would have lost out.
Its all very complicated isn't it, but then legal matters always are.
NP Darth. That's why I edited my post. I was replying to PhantomViper amongst others. Not picking out PV either, just he was the last to state that he thought they had to supply all independants or none. To stop supplying all the independants would give GW a monoply charge to answer. Not supplying WG would not. I assume if the worst came to pass, GW could just as easily hook up another independant and say "The market has not substantially changed. There are the same number of independants now as there were before." but WG would have lost out.
Again, that would depend if GW are big enough to be considered a monopoly or not. I think that if GW has a market share above 15% then they have a whole load of other restrictions that "normal" companies do not have.
The question now is: market share on which market? Toys? Certainly not, GW is a very small fish if we consider the whole toy market. Is there another smaller sub-set of the toy market where we can put GW in? ICv2 on the US makes that subdivision (miniature wargames), but does that have any legal weight? I guess that that would depend on the judge that took the case, like Allod said.
Again, that would depend if GW are big enough to be considered a monopoly or not. I think that if GW has a market share above 15% then they have a whole load of other restrictions that "normal" companies do not have.
The question now is: market share on which market? Toys? Certainly not, GW is a very small fish if we consider the whole toy market. Is there another smaller sub-set of the toy market where we can put GW in? ICv2 on the US makes that subdivision (miniature wargames), but does that have any legal weight? I guess that that would depend on the judge that took the case, like Allod said.
I'm not sure either. Lebelling it under Toys would certainly be too broad a category I feel. You also could perhaps have a games subdivision as well but I'm not sure that counts either.
Under ebay in the UK, GW stuff comes under Toys & Games and then another sub division of Wargames & Role-playing.
However as suggested it is really going to be the judge that decides this sort of thing.
However as suggested it is really going to be the judge that decides this sort of thing.
The judges may decide, but they may well decide with the (better, more expensive?) lawyers that makes the better argument.
EU definition is a tad more complicated than eBay categories.
Have fun
Spoiler:
COMMISSION NOTICE on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (97/C 372/03)
(Text with EEA relevance)
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The purpose of this notice is to provide guidance as to how the Commission applies the concept of relevant product and geographic market in its ongoing enforcement of Community competition law, in particular the application of Council Regulation No 17 and (EEC) No 4064/89, their equivalents in other sectoral applications such as transport, coal and steel, and agriculture, and the relevant provisions of the EEA Agreement (1). Throughout this notice, references to Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty and to merger control are to be understood as referring to the equivalent provisions in the EEA Agreement and the ECSC Treaty.
2. Market definition is a tool to identify and define the boundaries of competition between firms. It serves to establish the framework within which competition policy is applied by the Commission. The main purpose of market definition is to identify in a systematic way the competitive constraints that the undertakings involved (2) face. The objective of defining a market in both its product and geographic dimension is to identify those actual competitors of the undertakings involved that are capable of constraining those undertakings' behaviour and of preventing them from behaving independently of effective competitive pressure. It is from this perspective that the market definition makes it possible inter alia to calculate market shares that would convey meaningful information regarding market power for the purposes of assessing dominance or for the purposes of applying Article 85.
3. It follows from point 2 that the concept of 'relevant market` is different from other definitions of market often used in other contexts. For instance, companies often use the term 'market` to refer to the area where it sells its products or to refer broadly to the industry or sector where it belongs.
4. The definition of the relevant market in both its product and its geographic dimensions often has a decisive influence on the assessment of a competition case. By rendering public the procedures which the Commission follows when considering market definition and by indicating the criteria and evidence on which it relies to reach a decision, the Commission expects to increase the transparency of its policy and decision-making in the area of competition policy.
5. Increased transparency will also result in companies and their advisers being able to better anticipate the possibility that the Commission may raise competition concerns in an individual case. Companies could, therefore, take such a possibility into account in their own internal decision-making when contemplating, for instance, acquisitions, the creation of joint ventures, or the establishment of certain agreements. It is also intended that companies should be in a better position to understand what sort of information the Commission considers relevant for the purposes of market definition.
6. The Commission's interpretation of 'relevant market` is without prejudice to the interpretation which may be given by the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
II. DEFINITION OF RELEVANT MARKET
Definition of relevant product market and relevant geographic market
7. The Regulations based on Article 85 and 86 of the Treaty, in particular in section 6 of Form A/B with respect to Regulation No 17, as well as in section 6 of Form CO with respect to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations having a Community dimension have laid down the following definitions, 'Relevant product markets` are defined as follows:
'A relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer, by reason of the products' characteristics, their prices and their intended use`.
8. 'Relevant geographic markets` are defined as follows:
'The relevant geographic market comprises the area in which the undertakings concerned are involved in the supply and demand of products or services, in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous and which can be distinguished from neighbouring areas because the conditions of competition are appreciably different in those area`.
9. The relevant market within which to assess a given competition issue is therefore established by the combination of the product and geographic markets. The Commission interprets the definitions in paragraphs 7 an 8 (which reflect the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance as well as its own decision-making practice) according to the orientations defined in this notice.
Concept of relevant market and objectives of Community competition policy
10. The concept of relevant market is closely related to the objectives pursued under Community competition policy. For example, under the Community's merger control, the objective in controlling structural changes in the supply of a product/service is to prevent the creation or reinforcement of a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in a substantial part of the common market. Under the Community's competition rules, a dominant position is such that a firm or group of firms would be in a position to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers (3). Such a position would usually arise when a firm or group of firms accounted for a large share of the supply in any given market, provided that other factors analysed in the assessment (such as entry barriers, customers' capacity to react, etc.) point in the same direction.
11. The same approach is followed by the Commission in its application of Article 86 of the Treaty to firms that enjoy a single or collective dominant position. Within the meaning of Regulation No 17, the Commission has the power to investigate and bring to an end abuses of such a dominant position, which must also be defined by reference to the relevant market. Markets may also need to be defined in the application of Article 85 of the Treaty, in particular, in determining whether an appreciable restriction of competition exists or in establishing if the condition pursuant to Article 85 (3) (b) for an exemption from the application of Article 85 (1) is met.
12. The criteria for defining the relevant market are applied generally for the analysis of certain types of behaviour in the market and for the analysis of structural changes in the supply of products. This methodology, though, might lead to different results depending on the nature of the competition issue being examined. For instance, the scope of the geographic market might be different when analysing a concentration, where the analysis is essentially prospective, from an analysis of past behaviour. The different time horizon considered in each case might lead to the result that different geographic markets are defined for the same products depending on whether the Commission is examining a change in the structure of supply, such as a concentration or a cooperative joint venture, or examining issues relating to certain past behaviour.
Basic principles for market definition
Competitive constraints
13. Firms are subject to three main sources or competitive constraints: demand substitutability, supply substitutability and potential competition. From an economic point of view, for the definition of the relevant market, demand substitution constitutes the most immediate and effective disciplinary force on the suppliers of a given product, in particular in relation to their pricing decisions. A firm or a group of firms cannot have a significant impact on the prevailing conditions of sale, such as prices, if its customers are in a position to switch easily to available substitute products or to suppliers located elsewhere. Basically, the exercise of market definition consists in identifying the effective alternative sources of supply for the customers of the undertakings involved, in terms both of products/services and of geographic location of suppliers.
14. The competitive constraints arising from supply side substitutability other then those described in paragraphs 20 to 23 and from potential competition are in general less immediate and in any case require an analysis of additional factors. As a result such constraints are taken into account at the assessment stage of competition analysis.
Demand substitution
15. The assessment of demand substitution entails a determination of the range of products which are viewed as substitutes by the consumer. One way of making this determination can be viewed as a speculative experiment, postulating a hypothetical small, lasting change in relative prices and evaluating the likely reactions of customers to that increase. The exercise of market definition focuses on prices for operational and practical purposes, and more precisely on demand substitution arising from small, permanent changes in relative prices. This concept can provide clear indications as to the evidence that is relevant in defining markets.
16. Conceptually, this approach means that, starting from the type of products that the undertakings involved sell and the area in which they sell them, additional products and areas will be included in, or excluded from, the market definition depending on whether competition from these other products and areas affect or restrain sufficiently the pricing of the parties' products in the short term.
17. The question to be answered is whether the parties' customers would switch to readily available substitutes or to suppliers located elsewhere in response to a hypothetical small (in the range 5 % to 10 %) but permanent relative price increase in the products and areas being considered. If substitution were enough to make the price increase unprofitable because of the resulting loss of sales, additional substitutes and areas are included in the relevant market. This would be done until the set of products and geographical areas is such that small, permanent increases in relative prices would be profitable. The equivalent analysis is applicable in cases concerning the concentraiton of buying power, where the starting point would then be the supplier and the price test serves to identify the alternative distribution channels or outlets for the supplier's products. In the application of these principles, careful account should be taken of certain particular situations as described within paragraphs 56 and 58.
18. A practical example of this test can be provided by its application to a merger of, for instance, soft-drink bottlers. An issue to examine in such a case would be to decide whether different flavours of soft drinks belong to the same market. In practice, the question to address would be whether consumers of flavour A would switch to other flavours when confronted with a permanent price increase of 5 % to 10 % for flavour A. If a sufficient number of consumers would switch to, say, flavour B, to such an extent that the price increase for flavour A would not be profitable owing to the resulting loss of sales, then the market would comprise at least flavours A and B. The process would have to be extended in addition to other available flavours until a set of products is identified for which a price rise would not induce a sufficient substitution in demand.
19. Generally, and in particular for the analysis of merger cases, the price to take into account will be the prevailing market price. This may not be the case where the prevailing price has been determined in the absence of sufficient competition. In particular for the investigation of abuses of dominant positions, the fact that the prevailing price might already have been substantially increased will be taken into account.
Supply substitution
20. Supply-side substitutability may also be taken into account when defining markets in those situaitons in which its effects are equivalent to those of demand substitution in terms of effectiveness and immediacy. This means that suppliers are able to switch production to the relevant products and market them in the short term (4) without incurring significant additional costs or risks in response to small and permanent changes in relative prices. When these conditions are met, the additional production that is put on the market will have a disciplinary effect on the competitive behaviour of the companies involved. Such an impact in terms of effectiveness and immediacy is equivalent to the demand substitution effect.
21. These situations typically arise when companies market a wide range of qualities or grades of one product; even if, for a given final customer or group of consumers, the different qualities are not substitutable, the different qualities will be grouped into one product market, provided that most of the suppliers are able to offer and sell the various qualities immediately and without the significant increases in costs described above. In such cases, the relevant product market will encompass all products that are substitutable in demand and supply, and the current sales of those products will be aggregated so as to give the total value or volume of the market. The same reasoning may lead to group different geographic areas.
22. A practical example of the approach to supply-side substitutability when defining product markets is to be found in the case of paper. Paer is usually supplied in a range of different qualities, from standard writing paper to high quality papers to be used, for instance, to publish art books. From a demand point of view, different qualities of paper cannot be used for any given use, i.e. an art book or a high quality publication cannot be based on lower quality papers. However, paper plants are prepared to manufacture the different qualities, and production can be adjusted with negligible costs and in a short time-frame. In the absence of particular difficulties in distribution, paper manufacturers are able therefore, to compete for orders of the various qualities, in particular if orders are placed with sufficient lead time to allow for modification of production plans. Under such circumstances, the Commission would not define a separate market for each quality of paper and its respective use. The various qualities of paper are included in the relevant market, and their sales added up to estimate total market galue and volume.
23. When supply-side substitutability would entail the need to adjust significantly existing tangible and intangible assets, additional investments, strategic decisions or time delays, it will not be considered at the stage of market definition. Examples where supply-side substitution did not induce the Commission to enlarge the market are offered in the area of consumer products, in particular for branded beverages. Although bottling plants may in principle bottle different beverages, there are costs and lead times involved (in terms of advertising, product testing and distribution) before the products can actually be sold. In these cases, the effects of supply-side substitutability and other forms of potential competition would then be examined at a later stage.
Potential competition
24. The third source of competitive constraint, potential competition, is not taken into account when defining markets, since the conditions under which potential competition will actually represent an effective competitive constraint depend on the analysis of specific factors and circumstances related to the conditions of entry. If required, this analysis is only carried out at a subsequent stage, in general once the position of the companies involved in the relevant market has already been ascertained, and when such position gives rise to concerns from a competition point of view.
III. EVIDENCE RELIED ON TO DEFINE RELEVANT MARKETS
The process of defining the relevant market in practice
Product dimension
25. There is a range of evidence permitting an assessment of the extent to which substitution would take place. In individual cases, certain types of evidence will be determinant, depending very much on the characteristics and specificity of the industry and products or services that are being examined. The same type of evidence may be of no importance in other cases. In most cases, a decision will have to be based on the consideration of a number of criteria and different items of evidence. The Commission follows an open approach to empirical evidence, aimed at making an effective use of all available information which may be relevant in individual cases. The Commission does not follow a rigid hierarchy of different sources of information or types of evidence.
26. The process of defining relevant markets may be summarized as follows: on the basis of the preliminary information available or information submitted by the undertakings involved, the Commission will usually be in a position to broadly establish the possible relevant markets within which, for instance, a concentration or a restriction of competition has to be assessed. In general, and for all practical purposes when handling individual cases, the question will usually be to decide on a few alternative possible relevant markets. For instance, with respect to the product market, the issue will often be to establish whether product A and product B belong or do not belong to the same product market. it is often the case that the inclusion of product B would be enough to remove any competition concerns.
27. In such situations it is not necessary to consider whether the market includes additional products, or to reach a definitive conclusion on the precise product market. If under the conceivable alternative market definitions the operation in question does not raise competition concerns, the question of market definition will be left open, reducing thereby the burden on companies to supply information.
Geographic dimension
28. The Commission's approach to geographic market definition might be summarized as follows: it will take a preliminary view of the scope of the geographic market on the basis of broad indications as to the distribution of market shares between the parties and their competitors, as well as a preliminary analysis of pricing and price differences at national and Community or EEA level. This initial view is used basically as a working hypothesis to focus the Commission's enquiries for the purposes of arriving at a precise geographic market definition.
29. The reasons behind any particular configuration of prices and market shares need to be explored. Companies might enjoy high market shares in their domestic markets just because of the weight of the past, and conversely, a homogeneous presence of companies throughout the EEA might be consistent with national or regional geographic markets. The initial working hypothesis will therefore be checked against an analysis of demand characteristics (importance of national or local preferences, current patterns of purchases of customers, product differentiation/brands, other) in order to establish whether companies in different areas do indeed constitute a real alternative source of supply for consumers. The theoretical experiment is again based on substitution arising from changes in relative prices, and the question to answer is again whether the customers of the parties would switch their orders to companies located elsewhere in the short term and at a negligible cost.
30. If necessary, a further check on supply factors will be carried out to ensure that those companies located in differing areas do not face impediments in developing their sales on competitive terms throughout the whole geographic market. This analysis will include an examination of requirements for a local presence in order to sell in that area the conditions of access to distribution channels, costs associated with setting up a distribution network, and the presence or absence of regulatory barriers arising from public procurement, price regulations, quotas and tariffs limiting trade or production, technical standards, monopolies, freedom of establishment, requirements for administrative authorizations, packaging regulations, etc. In short, the Commission will identify possible obstacles and barriers isolating companies located in a given area from the competitive pressure of companies located outside that area, so as to determine the precise degree of market interpenetration at national, European or global level.
31. The actual pattern and evolution of trade flows offers useful supplementary indications as to the economic importance of each demand or supply factor mentioned above, and the extent to which they may or may not constitute actual barriers creating different geographic markets. The analysis of trade flows will generally address the question of transport costs and the extent to which these may hinder trade between different areas, having regard to plant location, costs of production and relative price levels.
Market integration in the Community
32. Finally, the Commission also takes into account the continuing process of market integration, in particular in the Community, when defining geographic markets, especially in the area of concentrations and structural joint ventures. The measures adopted and implemented in the internal market programme to remove barriers to trade and further integrate the Community markets cannot be ignored when assessing the effects on competition of a concentration or a structural joint venture. A situation where national markets have been artifically isolated from each other because of the existence of legislative barriers that have now been removed will generally lead to a cautious assessment of past evidence regarding prices, market shares or trade patterns. A process of market integration that would, in the short term, lead to wider geographic markets may therefore be taken into consideration when defining the geographic market for the purposes of assessing concentrations and joint ventures.
The process of gathering evidence
33. When a precise market definition is deemed necessary, the Commission will often contact the main customers and the main companies in the industry to enquire into their views about the boudaries of product and geographic markets and to obtain the necessary factual evidence to reach a conclusion. The Commission might also contact the relevant professional associations, and companies active in upstream markets, so as to be able to define, in so far as necessary, separate product and geographic markets, for different levels of production or distribution of the products/services in question. It might also request additional information to the undertakings involved.
34. Where appropriate, the Commission will address written requests for information to the market players mentioned above. These requests will usually include questions relating to the perceptions of companies about reactions to hypothetical price increases and their views of the boundaries of the relevant market. They will also ask for provision of the factual information the Commission deems necessary to reach a conclusion on the extent of the relevant market. The Commission might also discuss with marketing directors or other officers of those companies to gain a better understanding on how negotiations between suppliers and customers take place and better understand issues relating to the definition of the relevant market. Where appropriate, they might also carry out visits or inspections to the premises of the parties, their customers and/or their competitors, in order to better understand how products are manufactured and sold.
35. The type of evidence relevant to reach a conclusion as to the product market can be categorized as follows:
Evidence to define markets - product dimension
36. An analysis of the product characteristics and its intended use allows the Commission, as a first step, to limit the field of investigation of possible substitutes. However, product characteristics and intended use are insufficient to show whether two products are demand substitutes. Functional interchangeability or similarity in characteristics may not, in themselves, provide sufficient criteria, because the responsiveness of customers to relative price changes may be determinded by other considerations as well. For example, there may be different competitive contraints in the original equipment market for car components and in spare parts, thereby leading to a separate delineation of two relevant markets. Conversely, differences in product characteristics are not in themselves sufficient to exclude demand substitutability, since this will depend to a large extent on how customers value different characteristics.
37. The type of evidence the Commission considers relevant to assess whether two products are demand substitutes can be categorized as follows:
38. Evidence of substitution in the recent past. In certain cases, it is possible to analyse evidence relating to recent past events or shocks in the market that offer actual examples of substituion between two products. When available, this sort of information will normally be fundamental for market definition. If there have been changes in relative prices in the past (all else being equal), the reactions in terms of quantities demanded will be determinant in establishing substitutability. Launches of new products in the past can also offer useful information, when it is possible to precisely analyse which products have lost sales to the new product.
39. There are a number of quantitative tests that have specifically been designed for the purpose of delineating markets. These tests consist of various econometric and statistical approaches estimates of elasticities and cross-price elasticities (5) for the demand of a product, tests based on similarity of price movements over time, the analysis of causality between price series and similarity of price levels and/or their convergence. The Commission takes into account the available quantitative evidence capable of withstanding rigorous scrutiny for the purposes of establishing patterns of substitution in the past.
40. Views of customers and competitors. The Commission often contacts the main customers and competitors of the companies involved in its enquiries, to gather their views on the boundaries of the product market as well as most of the factual information it requires to reach a conclusion on the scope of the market. Reasoned answers of customers and competitors as to what would happen if relative prices for the candidate products were to increase in the candidate geographic area by a small amount (for instance of 5 % to 10 %) are taken into account when they are sufficiently backed by factual evidence.
41. Consumer preferences. In the case of consumer goods, it may be difficult for the Commission to gather the direct views of end consumers about substitute products. Marketing studies that companies have commissioned in the past and that are used by companies in their own decision-making as to pricing of their products and/or marketing actions may provide useful information for the Commission's delineation of the relevant market. Consumer surveys on usage patterns and attitudes, data from consumer's purchasing patterns, the views expressed by retailers and more generally, market research studies submitted by the parties and their competitors are taken into account to establish whether an economically significant proportion of consumers consider two products as substitutable, also taking into account the importance of brands for the products in question. The methodology followed in consumer surveys carried out ad hoc by the undertakings involved or their competitors for the purposes of a merger procedure or a procedure pursuant to Regulation No 17 will usually be scrutinized with utmost care. Unlike pre-existing studies, they have not been prepared in the normal course of business for the adoption of business decisions.
42. Barriers and costs associated with switching demand to potential substitutes. There are a number of barriers and costs that might prevent the Commission from considering two prima facie demand substitutes as belonging to one single product market. It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all the possible barriers to substitution and of switching costs. These barriers or obstacles might have a wide range of origins, and in its decisions, the Commission has been confronted with regulatory barriers or other forms of State intervention, constraints arising in downstream markets, need to incur specific capital investment or loss in current output in order to switch to alternative inputs, the location of customers, specific investment in production process, learning and human capital investment, retooling costs or other investments, uncertainty about quality and reputation of unknown suppliers, and others.
43. Different categories of customers and price discrimination. The extent of the product market might be narrowed in the presence of distinct groups of customers. A distinct group of customers for the relevant product may constitute a narrower, distinct market when such ha group could be subject to price discrimination. This will usually be the case when two conditions are met: (a) it is possible to identify clearly which group an individual customer belongs to at the moment of selling the relevant products to him, and (b) trade among customers or arbitrage by third parties should not be feasible.
Evidence for defining markets - geographic dimension
44. The type of evidence the Commission considers relevant to reach a conclusion as to the geographic market can be categorized as follows:
45. Past evidence of diversion of orders to other areas. In certain cases, evidence on changes in prices between different areas and consequent reactions by customers might be available. Generally, the same quantitative tests used for product market definition might as well be used in geographic market definition, bearing in mind that international comparisons of prices might be more complex due to a number of factors such as exchange rate movements, taxation and product differentiation.
46. Basic demand characteristics. The nature of demand for the relevant product may in itself determine the scope of the geographical market. Factors such as national preferences or preferences for national brands, language, culture and life style, and the need for a local presence have a strong potential to limit the geographic scope of competition.
47. Views of customers and competitors. Where appropriate, the Commission will contact the main customers and competitors of the parties in its enquiries, to gather their views on the boundaries of the geographic market as well as most of the factual information it requires to reach a conclusion on the scope of the market when they are sufficiently backed by factual evidence.
48. Current geographic pattern of purchases. An examination of the customers' current geographic pattern of purchases provides useful evidence as to the possible scope of the geographic market. When customers purchase from companies located anywhere in the Community or the EEA on similar terms, or they procure their supplies through effective tendering procedures in which companies from anywhere in the Community or the EEA submit bids, usually the geographic market will be considered to be Community-wide.
49. Trade flows/pattern of shipments. When the number of customers is so large that it is not possible to obtain through them a clear picture of geographic purchasing patterns, information on trade flows might be used alternatively, provided that the trade statistics are available with a sufficient degree of detail for the relevant products. Trade flows, and above all, the rationale behind trade flows provide useful insights and information for the purpose of establishing the scope of the geographic market but are not in themselves conclusive.
50. Barriers and switching costs associated to divert orders to companies located in other areas. The absence of trans-border purchases or trade flows, for instance, does not necessarily mean that the market is at most national in scope. Still, barriers isolating the national market have to identified before it is concluded that the relevant geographic market in such a case is national. Perhaps the clearest obstacle for a customer to divert its orders to other areas is the impact of transport costs and transport restrictions arising from legislation or from the nature of the relevant products. The impact of transport costs will usually limit the scope of the geographic market for bulky, low-value products, bearing in mind that a transport disadvantage might also be compensated by a comparative advantage in other costs (labour costs or raw materials). Access to distribution in a given area, regulatory barriers still existing in certain sectors, quotas and custom tariffs might also constitute barriers isolating a geographic area from the competitive pressure of companies located outside that area. Significant switching costs in procuring supplies from companies located in other countries constitute additional sources of such barriers.
51. On the basis of the evidence gathered, the Commission will then define a geographic market that could range from a local dimension to a global one, and there are examples of both local and global markets in past decisions of the Commission.
52. The paragraphs above describe the different factors which might be relevant to define markets. This does not imply that in each individual case it will be necessary to obtain evidence and assess each of these factors. Often in practice the evidence provided by a susbset of these factors will be sufficient to reach a conclusion, as shown in the past decisional practice of the Commission.
IV. CALCULATION OF MARKET SHARE
53. The definition of the relevant market in both its product and geograhic dimensions allows the identification the suppliers and the customers/consumers active on that market. On that basis, a total market size and market shares for each supplier can be calculated on the basis of their sales of the relevant products in the relevant area. In practice, the total market size and market shares are often available from market sources, i.e. companies' estimates, studies commissioned from industry consultants and/or trade associations. When this is not the case, or when available estimates are not reliable, the Commission will usually ask each supplier in the relevant market to provide its own sales in order to calculate total market size and market shares.
54. If sales are usually the reference to calculate market shares, there are nevertheless other indications that, depending on the specific products or industry in question, can offer useful information such as, in particular, capacity, the number of players in bidding markets, units of fleet as in aerospace, or the reserves held in the case of sectors such as mining.
55. As a rule of thumb, both volume sales and value sales provide useful information. In cases of differentiated products, sales in value and their associated market share will usually be considered to better reflect the relative position and strength of each supplier.
V. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
56. There are certain areas where the application of the principles above has to be undertaken with care. This is the case when considering primary and secondary markets, in particular, when the behaviour of undertakings at a point in time has to be analysed pursuant to Article 86. The method of defining markets in these cases is the same, i.e. assessing the responses of customers based on their purchasing decisions to relative price changes, but taking into account as well, constraints on substitution imposed by conditions in the connected markets. A narrow definition of market for secondary products, for instance, spare parts, may result when compatibility with the primary product is important. Problems of finding compatible secondary products together with the existence of high prices and a long lifetime of the primary products may render relative price increases of secondary products profitable. A different market definition may result if significant substitution between secondary products is possible or if the characteristics of the primary products make quick and direct consumer responses to relative price increases of the secondary products feasible.
57. In certain cases, the existence of chains of substitution might lead to the definition of a relevant market where products or areas at the extreme of the market are not directly substitutable. An example might be provided by the geographic dimension of a product with significant transport costs. In such cases, deliveries from a given plant are limited to a certain area around each plant by the impact of transport costs. In principle, such an area could constitute the relevant geographic market. However, if the distribution of plants is such that there are considerable overlaps between the areas around different plants, it is possible that the pricing of those products will be constrained by a chain substitution effect, and lead to the definition of a broader geographic market. The same reasoning may apply if product B is a demand substitute for products A and C. Even if products A and C are not direct demand substitutes, they might be found to be in the same relevant product market since their respective pricing might be constrained by substitution to B.
58. From a practical perspective, the concept of chains of substitution has to be corroborated by actual evidence, for instance related to price interdependence at the extremes of the chains of substitution, in order to lead to an extension of the relevant market in an individual case. Price levels at the extremes of the chains would have to be of the same magnitude as well.
(1) The focus of assessment in State aid cases is the aid recipient and the industry/sector concerned rather than identification of competitive constraints faced by the aid recipient. When consideration of market power and therefore of the relevant market are raised in any particular case, elements of the approach outlined here might serve as a basis for the assessment of State aid cases.
(2) For the purposes of this notice, the undertakings involved will be, in the case of a concentration, the parties to the concentration; in investigations within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty, the undertaking being investigated or the complainants; for investigations within the meaning of Article 85, the parties to the Agreement.
(3) Definition given by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 13 February 1979 in Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche [1979] ECR 461, and confirmed in subsequent judgments.
(4) That is such a period that does not entail a significant adjustment of existing tangible and intangible assets (see paragraph 23).
(5) Own-price elasticity of demand for product X is a measure of the responsiveness of demand for X to percentage change in its own price. Cross-prise elasticity between products X and Y is the responsiveness of demand for product X to percentage change in the price of product Y.
To illustrate the issue with a case from Germany (I could probably find the source if I searched, but please don't make me if it can be helped):
Some small perfumery vendor sued an anonymized perfumery producer because he would refuse to trade with her despite her venue fulfilling all the demands of the trade terms. Trial showed that the brands in question were highly exclusive, but not well known.
The producer argued that the vendors shop was too small and they didn't want the appearance of every mom&pop store carrying their brands. The trade terms didn't put a lower limit on store size and size of revenue because they DID want to be carried by all those tiny, trendy "perfumery boutiques" in the inner cities.
After deciding in the vendor's favor that the market in question was "luxury perfumery", the court found that the producer, although being market leader by dint of overwhelming market share in this particular niche, didn't have much market power because of the total size of the niche market, said niche market's relevance for typical perfumery retailers' revenue and the sheer number of competitors. (Do you already see why this example came to mind?)
The vendor argued that the customers coming into her store demanded the producer's brands, and that her venue would not manage to survive without carrying them. The court found that it was her responsibility as a vendor to identify and sell available products for her particular demographic of customers, and since there was so much choice, she did not have a right to be supplied by the producer.
Moral of the story: it depends on your market power whether your trade terms are guidelines or commandments.
The judges may decide, but they may well decide with the (better, more expensive?) lawyers that makes the better argument.
Well naturally. They will listen to what the lawyers have to say but final decision is with them. Sometimes a judge does go rogue and doesn't necessarily listen to what the lawyers have to say.
EU definition is a tad more complicated than eBay categories.
I understand, I was just using it as perhaps an indication of what a company like ebay would do.
Again, that would depend if GW are big enough to be considered a monopoly or not. I think that if GW has a market share above 15% then they have a whole load of other restrictions that "normal" companies do not have.
There is no such thing as a hard border to determine whether a company constitutes a monopoly (and we're talking about market dominance, monopoly is pretty much out of the question here). European anti-trust law uses 30%-40% market share as an INDICATOR of market dominance in a buyers' market, among a whole slew of other prerequisites. So far there have been too few decisions on suppliers' markets (like toys, wargaming miniatures, wherever you want to put GW) for a consensus to form, but jurisprudence seems to favor a 50% approach.
Zweischneid wrote: The judges may decide, but they may well decide with the (better, more expensive?) lawyers that makes the better argument.
I guess you've got a better idea - maybe it should be a popularity contest instead
I am not sure what you're trying to say?
That if we have a court case, and two groups of legal counsels make their arguments, and the judge sides with the best argument presented to him, nothing bad happened.
Bull0 wrote: That if we have a court case, and two groups of legal counsels make their arguments, and the judge sides with the best argument presented to him, nothing bad happened.
And what's that got to do with the point everybody but you have been discussing for the last 5 pages or so?
(which is, as a reminder, that if we have a court case, and two groups of legal counsels make their argument, and the judge sides with one argument or the other, the outcome of any given case isn't apriori determined. Consequently, the possibility of a judge ruling against you should always be considered (vis-a-vis non-court alternatives... e.g. splitting a business partnership as the one of Wayland Games and BoW) before deciding on whether going to court is a sensible option).
Bull0 wrote: That if we have a court case, and two groups of legal counsels make their arguments, and the judge sides with the best argument presented to him, nothing bad happened.
And what's that got to do with the point everybody but you have been discussing for the last 5 pages or so?
(which is, as a reminder, that if we have a court case, and two groups of legal counsels make their argument, and the judge sides with one argument or the other, the outcome of any given case isn't apriori determined. Consequently, the possibility of a judge ruling against you should always be considered (vis-a-vis non-court alternatives... e.g. splitting a business partnership as the one of Wayland Games and BoW) before deciding on whether going to court is a sensible option).
I flat-out have no idea what thread you're talking about. In this thread I've seen people discussing all kinds of things, but the point of "two groups of legal counsels will put forward their best point and the judge might side with the best one, so you should bear that in mind before deciding whether or not to go to court" hadn't come up until you vomited it up, from what I can see. We did have "The judge might not know enough about the field to make a good judgement, because it's so niche and judges are just human", which is a good point.
This thread is crazy now, won't be keeping up with it any longer.
The sheer amount of people defending the actions of GW is shocking. I guess a bunch of you managed to find an even brighter shade of white whilst I was away.
I think it's more a case of people arguing in favour of GW from a legal-standpoint, rather than trying to make out that any of this is a 'good thing' for the BoW, the fans (or even GW themselves for that matter).
Company A sells miniatures and has a contract with Company B.
Website Z likes to talk about miniatures from Company B, including rumours of unreleased items.
Company B threatens Company A's ability to sell Company B's miniatures unless Website Z stops talking about their products.
And people are defending this. I quote Ripley from the start of Aliens, but I don't want to incur the wrath of the dreaded red text.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Company A sells miniatures and has a contract with Company B.
Website Z likes to talk about miniatures from Company B, including rumours of unreleased items.
Company B threatens Company A's ability to sell Company B's miniatures unless Website Z stops talking about their products.
And people are defending this. I quote Ripley from the start of Aliens, but I don't want to incur the wrath of the dreaded red text.
More like:
Company A sells miniatures and has a contract with Company B.
Website Z which shares staff, office space and has access to Company A's resources in an informal way likes to talk about miniatures from Company B, including rumours of unreleased items which Company A WOULD sometimes have access to.
Company B threatens Company A's ability to sell Company B's miniatures unless Website Z stops talking about their products.
If you don't like Company Bs trade contract, don't sign it and don't sell Company Bs product. If you need it or else you can't survive, then you have to abide by it regardless how irrational or damaging it seems to be. Seems like ejecting the website and clearing any potential of conflict of interests which would impact your trade agreement is the only valid thing you can do besides 'go bankrupt' or 'stop selling Company Bs Product'.
If you feel Company B is being unethical... and Company A is basically 'forced' to comply... then as a consumer, stop buying Company B's products.
The truth is all the people who expresses distaste with this will continue to buy Company Bs products, and while they will rationalize why 'somehow' their version of buying Company Bs product somehow is really a stab at the heart of the beast and they are having cake and eating it too, they are just delusional and Company B is laughing all the way to the bank.
nkelsch wrote: Company A sells miniatures and has a contract with Company B.
Website Z which shares staff, office space and has access to Company A's resources in an informal way likes to talk about miniatures from Company B, including rumours of unreleased items which Company A WOULD sometimes have access to.
Company B threatens Company A's ability to sell Company B's miniatures unless Website Z stops talking about their products.
There is no difference. You're threatening one company because you don't like what another one is doing. It's bs. Total and utter bull gak.
I hope BOW continues to post news and rumours about GW until the end of fething time.
nkelsch wrote: The truth is all the people who expresses distaste with this will continue to buy Company Bs products, and while they will rationalize why 'somehow' their version of buying Company Bs product somehow is really a stab at the heart of the beast and they are having cake and eating it too, they are just delusional and Company B is laughing all the way to the bank.
The truth is all the people who expresses distaste with this will continue to buy Company Bs products, and while they will rationalize why 'somehow' their version of buying Company Bs product somehow is really a stab at the heart of the beast and they are having cake and eating it too, they are just delusional and Company B is laughing all the way to the bank.
Really?
That's the truth is it?
An awfully grand and sweeping statement, but as it's the truth, I'm sure you'll have no issue providing all sorts of evidence and citations to back it up.
Or, alternatively, it's just hyperbolic bullgak.
Just taking myself as an example of your truth, do I still spend money with GW? Sure, if they release a new codex for one of my armies, or genuinely release something of quality and value to me. I don't make any secret or attempt at justifying that.
I do, however, modify my spending dramatically, having invested in other systems, model manufacturers and paint ranges since I first became aware of their tendency to act in the way they do.
This is costing them several hundred pounds a year, just from me, probably less than 10% of my hobby budget goes to GW now, compared to two or three years ago, when it would have been closer to 75% or higher. There are several (probably half) members at my local club who have scaled back dramatically or quit altogether too.
I've said before, if I'm part of a small minority, then my actions will be of little consequence, but I'm content I've struck a balance between modifying my buying behaviour to reflect my distaste for their actions and not cutting my nose off to spite my face.
nkelsch wrote: Company A sells miniatures and has a contract with Company B.
Website Z which shares staff, office space and has access to Company A's resources in an informal way likes to talk about miniatures from Company B, including rumours of unreleased items which Company A WOULD sometimes have access to.
Company B threatens Company A's ability to sell Company B's miniatures unless Website Z stops talking about their products.
There is no difference. You're threatening one company because you don't like what another one is doing. It's bs. Total and utter bull gak.
I hope BOW continues to post news and rumours about GW until the end of fething time.
nkelsch wrote: The truth is all the people who expresses distaste with this will continue to buy Company Bs products, and while they will rationalize why 'somehow' their version of buying Company Bs product somehow is really a stab at the heart of the beast and they are having cake and eating it too, they are just delusional and Company B is laughing all the way to the bank.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Not true, in professional realms, especially government contracting, subletting office space is enough to be an conflict of interest. Sharing staff, office space is very much a issue for many professional business relationships when it comes to conflicts of interests even if the groups are policing themselves.
I know you need to irrationally hate, but they had a conflict of interest which they resolved to keep them selves in business. I am not saying it is good or bad, just not uncommon in the business world.
And people being boldface hypocrites and refusing to vote with their wallets is very relevant. People who claim GWs product and business practices are unreasonable but still shovel money to GW is validating their business practices. There is no such thing as paying for a product but attaching a post-it note of dissatisfaction as you shovel over your cash. All they hear is " buy" or "not buy"
There was no conflict of interest, there was an assumed conflict of interest on behalf of GW (which is admittedly all they need in law apparently) so decided to act like tossers just to be certain.
The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. By very definition, sharing and office and/or staff is a conflict of interest even if they claim to have physical controls or self-police access to information.
In the business world, this would be a textbook conflict of interest example. Wayland handled it in the best way they could.
nkelsch wrote: The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. By very definition, sharing and office and/or staff is a conflict of interest even if they claim to have physical controls or self-police access to information.
In the business world, this would be a textbook conflict of interest example. Wayland handled it in the best way they could.
Just for clarity, are you actually saying GW were right to do what they did? Or are you simply arguing that they were allowed to do it? Or are you just arguing?
Was GW right to take action? That's too subjective to have a correct answer. Even MiniatureMarket wouldn't commit to answer this.
Was GW allowed to do it? Absolutely.
Are those of us who see that "white knights"? No. This is nothing like the "Spots" fiasco where GW was clearly wrong, had no right to take the action they did, and only "true" white knights would even have thought to defend GW on that one.
GW has no method of enforcing "rumor control" on Beasts of War because there is no contract in place between the two. However, Beasts of War being a component of Wayland Games gave GW the opportunity to apply pressure via proxy. Pressure Wayland and Wayland will pressure BoW. At least that's the theory.
By terminating their affiliation with Wayland, BoW are now free and clear of any legal maneuvers available to GW to control BoW's content. Wayland also is able to focus directly on their business without the distraction of GW/BoW tit-for-tat.
How will this play out in the long term? I expect BoW will have to assess their business model to ensure they maintain enough revenue to operate. This is a little trickier since they no longer "share" staff with Wayland but given the videos I've seen, shouldn't be a big issue.
Just taking myself as an example of your truth, do I still spend money with GW? Sure, if they release a new codex for one of my armies, or genuinely release something of quality and value to me. I don't make any secret or attempt at justifying that.
I do, however, modify my spending dramatically, having invested in other systems, model manufacturers and paint ranges since I first became aware of their tendency to act in the way they do.
This is costing them several hundred pounds a year, just from me, probably less than 10% of my hobby budget goes to GW now, compared to two or three years ago, when it would have been closer to 75% or higher. There are several (probably half) members at my local club who have scaled back dramatically or quit altogether too.
I've said before, if I'm part of a small minority, then my actions will be of little consequence, but I'm content I've struck a balance between modifying my buying behaviour to reflect my distaste for their actions and not cutting my nose off to spite my face.
My actions are similar. Where once, GW was 80%+ of my hobby spending, I've gotten into a huge variety of other games, and buying new GW product is now.. I dunno. 5%? at most. A couple of times a year I do a large GW buy, but then again, I spend that much elsewhere regularly throughout the year on other companies' products. Due to the embargo(s), I don't even add a few GW models to online purchases of other stuff anymore.
Breotan wrote: Was GW right to take action? That's too subjective to have a correct answer. Even MiniatureMarket wouldn't commit to answer this.
Was GW allowed to do it? Absolutely.
Are those of us who see that "white knights"? No. This is nothing like the "Spots" fiasco where GW was clearly wrong, had no right to take the action they did, and only "true" white knights would even have thought to defend GW on that one.
GW has no method of enforcing "rumor control" on Beasts of War because there is no contract in place between the two. However, Beasts of War being a component of Wayland Games gave GW the opportunity to apply pressure via proxy. Pressure Wayland and Wayland will pressure BoW. At least that's the theory.
By terminating their affiliation with Wayland, BoW are now free and clear of any legal maneuvers available to GW to control BoW's content. Wayland also is able to focus directly on their business without the distraction of GW/BoW tit-for-tat.
How will this play out in the long term? I expect BoW will have to assess their business model to ensure they maintain enough revenue to operate. This is a little trickier since they no longer "share" staff with Wayland but given the videos I've seen, shouldn't be a big issue.
So what you say is the following:
Since GW could not enforce what they wanted legally, because they could not, its absolutely perfect to sidestep the law and apply contractual pressure to achieve what they could not legally achieve.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The sheer amount of people defending the actions of GW is shocking. I guess a bunch of you managed to find an even brighter shade of white whilst I was away.
What about the people pointing out that this is simply what big companies do? Does that shock you? DO you think if, say, Privateer Press had been leading the market for 20 years and were a Plc they would be much more cuddly and fluffy? You know, the Privateer Press who produce their stuff in an undemocratic, morally dubious state to make more money?
Some of us merely have our outrage bar set higher than yours.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The sheer amount of people defending the actions of GW is shocking. I guess a bunch of you managed to find an even brighter shade of white whilst I was away.
What about the people pointing out that this is simply what big companies do? Does that shock you? DO you think if, say, Privateer Press had been leading the market for 20 years and were a Plc they would be much more cuddly and fluffy? You know, the Privateer Press who produce their stuff in an undemocratic, morally dubious state to make more money?
Some of us merely have our outrage bar set higher than yours.
Just going to switch the hyperbole drive on a minute.....
Ah, yes, here we go...
Murder, rape, child abuse, arson, embezzlement, tax fraud, adultery and genocide are simply things that (some) people do.
That means we aren't allowed to be upset, angry or outraged by it?
To bring it closer to a sensible argument, corporations avoid paying millions in taxes through evasion each year, and that's technically legal as well, so we should just bend over for that?
For the second time in this thread
Ok, evil is more "shenanigans" but the point remains valid.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The sheer amount of people defending the actions of GW is shocking. I guess a bunch of you managed to find an even brighter shade of white whilst I was away.
What about the people pointing out that this is simply what big companies do? Does that shock you? DO you think if, say, Privateer Press had been leading the market for 20 years and were a Plc they would be much more cuddly and fluffy? You know, the Privateer Press who produce their stuff in an undemocratic, morally dubious state to make more money?
But, I suppose the point is that they are the only PLC, and the only company doing this kind of thing. Understanding the reasons 'why' (and I completely agree with both yourself and Bull0 in this regard) does not make it any more palatable.
I agree with you that everyone has a 'threshold' and a lot of it comes down to whether things affect you personally, and your ability to shrug while munching on a sandwich saying "well, that's nothing to do with me!" when it doesn't. I was in a situation not too dissimilar to Azazelx, in my case living in a country with no GW or retailers, and relied entirely on mail order from back home in the UK - suddenly, while trying to order a new Orc & Goblin army from Wayland, the guy on the phone tells me that I'm not able to make the order any more. Up until that point, while the price rises and some of the other GW policies had irritated me, they hadn't been shoved in my face before - so I guess perspective and the subjective situation is important, although I would never denigrate someone else's opinion or complaint on the basis that I'm in a better situation personally.
In summary: Look up 'Monty Python fish slapping dance' - In a similar manner to John Cleese, it's different for each of us how many slaps you can take before you respond with a haddock of your own and knock it into the river (or something?!)
Since GW could not enforce what they wanted legally, because they could not, its absolutely perfect to sidestep the law and apply contractual pressure to achieve what they could not legally achieve.
I understand the sentiment, but you cannot sidestep the law with a contract, and your phrasing is entirely misleading. If a contractual clause is not forbidden by law, it is by definition legal. And we just discussed that particular point at great length.
You condemn GW's unethical behaviour in this case, and rightly so, but don't devaluate your position by acting unethically yourself in practically accusing GW of extortion.
unethical =/= illegal
I'm honestly surprised how many posters seem to have a problem with this concept.
GW used the law with numerous C&D letters to shut up BOW, since fair use makes them ineffective and denying them the legal means to censor Beasts of War, they updated their contracts to specifically do what the law does not allow them to.
Is that unethical? yes it is, does it look to my eyes as means to sidestep law and achieve what the law is designed to prevent? yes, it does.
Maybe to a professional in the field it looks different, to me as an untrained individual it looks as what I describe above.
Fair enough. I was rather having issues with your use of the word "legal". If you merely meant to say they are specifically sidestepping copyright law with their contracts, that's a position one can assume I suppose.
GW used the law with numerous C&D letters to shut up BOW, since fair use makes them ineffective and denying them the legal means to censor Beasts of War, they updated their contracts to specifically do what the law does not allow them to.
Is that unethical? yes it is, does it look to my eyes as means to sidestep law and achieve what the law is designed to prevent? yes, it does.
Maybe to a professional in the field it looks different, to me as an untrained individual it looks as what I describe above.
"Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Bull0 wrote: "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Moving all profits off shore to avoid paying taxes is sidestepping tax law. Declaring that your wife (conveniently) lives in a country with extremely low income tax (despite her spending very little time there) and paying your entire salary to her out of the goodness of your heart is conveniently sidestepping income tax.
Just going to switch the hyperbole drive on a minute.....
Ah, yes, here we go...
Murder, rape, child abuse, arson, embezzlement, tax fraud, adultery and genocide are simply things that (some) people do.
That means we aren't allowed to be upset, angry or outraged by it?
Yes, we should indeed get upset by murder, child abuse, tax fraud and genocide. We should recognise that this is in a different category than charging too much for toy soldiers.
For the avoidance of doubt, GW has pulled some incompetent, exploitative tricks, in terms of attempting a retrospective copyright grab on freelance artists. But... controlling news about your own product, whether or not you agree with their reasoning, is completely ethical. As mentioned before, if BoW are going to publish, they need to read up on Fair Use (or, in UK terms, Fair Dealing), and stick to it - then they will always be able to tell GW where to stick it.
Other than this, this is really a non-story about a business contract.
Just going to switch the hyperbole drive on a minute.....
Ah, yes, here we go...
Murder, rape, child abuse, arson, embezzlement, tax fraud, adultery and genocide are simply things that (some) people do.
That means we aren't allowed to be upset, angry or outraged by it?
Yes, we should indeed get upset by murder, child abuse, tax fraud and genocide. We should recognise that this is in a different category than charging too much for toy soldiers.
Not a different category at all, just a different order of magnitude. Murder is, of course,, a much worse thing than price gouging or heavy handed business practices, but the mechanism at work is the same, people are upset, perhaps outraged, by something they perceive as a "wrong" or an injustice. Just because it's somehow less "bad" doesn't invalidate people's reaction to it.
For the avoidance of doubt, GW has pulled some incompetent, exploitative tricks, in terms of attempting a retrospective copyright grab on freelance artists. But... controlling news about your own product, whether or not you agree with their reasoning, is completely ethical. As mentioned before, if BoW are going to publish, they need to read up on Fair Use (or, in UK terms, Fair Dealing), and stick to it - then they will always be able to tell GW where to stick it.
Other than this, this is really a non-story about a business contract.
They couldn't touch BoW through copyright law, precisely because they were sticking within the remit of the law, hence the manipulation of the trade terms to pressure Wayland. If you see this as ethical behaviour, rather than a futile, and ineffective, attempt to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, found a nice horse, settled down and had a couple of foals, I can only conclude you were molested by a large company as a child and it has distorted your view of right and wrong...
EDIT I also can't help but notice you didn't address the self confessed more grounded part of my point in the post you quoted....
GW used the law with numerous C&D letters to shut up BOW, since fair use makes them ineffective and denying them the legal means to censor Beasts of War, they updated their contracts to specifically do what the law does not allow them to.
Is that unethical? yes it is, does it look to my eyes as means to sidestep law and achieve what the law is designed to prevent? yes, it does.
Maybe to a professional in the field it looks different, to me as an untrained individual it looks as what I describe above.
"Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Precisely, what GW is doing falls into the category of "Being a dick," as I explained on page one.
Bull0 wrote: "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Moving all profits off shore to avoid paying taxes is sidestepping tax law. Declaring that your wife (conveniently) lives in a country with extremely low income tax (despite her spending very little time there) and paying your entire salary to her out of the goodness of your heart is conveniently sidestepping income tax.
Sidestepping the law is a thing.
What you just described is tax evasion / tax minimisation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: [bafflingly compared GW's trade terms to genocide]
We are talking about GW practices but yet we buy stuff from China where the labour laws are even worse, and still having child labour producing things. Buildings not made up to codex, where 100's die due to poor conditions, etc etc.
We all buy toys, clothes, electronic gadgets, tv's, cell phones, all made buy people who make less than $12 a day, 12 hours a day and yet we are outraged by GW instead.
Davor wrote: We are talking about GW practices but yet we buy stuff from China where the labour laws are even worse, and still having child labour producing things. Buildings not made up to codex, where 100's die due to poor conditions, etc etc.
We all buy toys, clothes, electronic gadgets, tv's, cell phones, all made buy people who make less than $12 a day, 12 hours a day and yet we are outraged by GW instead.
Just flabbergasted.
Because somewhere somehow worse things happen, we should not complain when other things happen?
Or
Because we buy unavoidably things coming from the nation that has concentrated the vast majority of manufacturing we should not complain about anything?
Bull0 wrote: "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Moving all profits off shore to avoid paying taxes is sidestepping tax law. Declaring that your wife (conveniently) lives in a country with extremely low income tax (despite her spending very little time there) and paying your entire salary to her out of the goodness of your heart is conveniently sidestepping income tax.
Sidestepping the law is a thing.
What you just described is tax evasion / tax minimisation.
And what GW did was suppressing free press, in either case there is nothing illegal about the way they do it technically at least.
Bull0 wrote: "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Moving all profits off shore to avoid paying taxes is sidestepping tax law. Declaring that your wife (conveniently) lives in a country with extremely low income tax (despite her spending very little time there) and paying your entire salary to her out of the goodness of your heart is conveniently sidestepping income tax.
Sidestepping the law is a thing.
What you just described is tax evasion / tax minimisation.
And what GW did was suppressing free press, in either case there is nothing illegal about the way they do it technically at least.
Really? "Suppressing free press"?
Last I checked GW isn't a government--which is really the only entity which can "suppress free press".
Davor wrote: We are talking about GW practices but yet we buy stuff from China where the labour laws are even worse, and still having child labour producing things. Buildings not made up to codex, where 100's die due to poor conditions, etc etc.
We all buy toys, clothes, electronic gadgets, tv's, cell phones, all made buy people who make less than $12 a day, 12 hours a day and yet we are outraged by GW instead.
Just flabbergasted.
Because somewhere somehow worse things happen, we should not complain when other things happen?
Or
Because we buy unavoidably things coming from the nation that has concentrated the vast majority of manufacturing we should not complain about anything?
No, just some people are acting like this happened all of a sudden or are high and might and was complaining about people complaining about GW standards.
Just guess tired of people complaining about people complaining about GW.
Bull0 wrote: "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Moving all profits off shore to avoid paying taxes is sidestepping tax law. Declaring that your wife (conveniently) lives in a country with extremely low income tax (despite her spending very little time there) and paying your entire salary to her out of the goodness of your heart is conveniently sidestepping income tax.
Sidestepping the law is a thing.
What you just described is tax evasion / tax minimisation.
And what GW did was suppressing free press, in either case there is nothing illegal about the way they do it technically at least.
Really? "Suppressing free press"?
Last I checked GW isn't a government--which is really the only entity which can "suppress free press".
BoW released information about GW, be it prereleases, comparing them to other stuff or anything GW didn't like it and flexed their legal muscle to make them stop, they were unable because press is legally protected.
Since they could not legally arm wrestle them to submission, they used their contracts and position in the market to suppress them.
Yes, I think it counts as suppressing the free press.
Bull0 wrote: "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Moving all profits off shore to avoid paying taxes is sidestepping tax law. Declaring that your wife (conveniently) lives in a country with extremely low income tax (despite her spending very little time there) and paying your entire salary to her out of the goodness of your heart is conveniently sidestepping income tax.
Sidestepping the law is a thing.
What you just described is tax evasion / tax minimisation.
Bull0 wrote: "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Moving all profits off shore to avoid paying taxes is sidestepping tax law. Declaring that your wife (conveniently) lives in a country with extremely low income tax (despite her spending very little time there) and paying your entire salary to her out of the goodness of your heart is conveniently sidestepping income tax.
Sidestepping the law is a thing.
What you just described is tax evasion / tax minimisation.
Tax avoidance.
Tax evasion is the illegal one
You're right. I used both (tax minimisation's synonymous with tax avoidance, at least in the UK) because I'm no expert on tax law, and don't know whether or not the tactics described are legal.
Bull0 wrote: "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Moving all profits off shore to avoid paying taxes is sidestepping tax law. Declaring that your wife (conveniently) lives in a country with extremely low income tax (despite her spending very little time there) and paying your entire salary to her out of the goodness of your heart is conveniently sidestepping income tax.
Sidestepping the law is a thing.
What you just described is tax evasion / tax minimisation.
Tax avoidance.
Tax evasion is the illegal one
You're right. I used both (tax minimisation's synonymous with tax avoidance, at least in the UK) because I'm no expert on tax law, and don't know whether or not the tactics described are legal.
Let me cut this right back to what you originally said, you said "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing.
You are wrong, sidestepping or working to bypass a law is entirely legal, it's why rich people hire skilled money advisers, to find the means to bypass or escape the laws via loopholes and chicanery.
Continuing to argue against that or pretend it's not what the poster was saying is pedantry.
Bull0 wrote: "Sidestepping the law" while continuing to act completely within the law isn't a thing. You don't like what they did; fine; neither do I, really. You're not actually adding anything to that with these sorts of bizarre claims.
Moving all profits off shore to avoid paying taxes is sidestepping tax law. Declaring that your wife (conveniently) lives in a country with extremely low income tax (despite her spending very little time there) and paying your entire salary to her out of the goodness of your heart is conveniently sidestepping income tax.
Sidestepping the law is a thing.
What you just described is tax evasion / tax minimisation.
Tax avoidance.
Tax evasion is the illegal one
You're right. I used both (tax minimisation's synonymous with tax avoidance, at least in the UK) because I'm no expert on tax law, and don't know whether or not the tactics described are legal.
You realise that it's the exact same thing right? Those with power can afford to sidestep the law and use other laws to dowhat they weren't originally intending. Tax leeches can't decide not to pay their taxes under regular law so use another law to get their way, using it in a way that wasn't originally intended.
GW can't shut down BoW using the law since what BoW doing constitutes free speech. So they use another law (contract law) to get their way.
Whether you think that what BoW was doing was "right" (hint: it was), GW had absolutely no grounds to shut them down for it. So they abused another law to get their way.
I'm certainly moving over to Kettle Chips in future! 
).
