sourclams wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I personally believe that "space marine" has well and truly left the dock... it's a very generic term.

It would seem that the expert agrees with you.

Except that's not exactly how the testimony from the expert reads in the quoted statement. It's not the term itself; but rather the concept.

Q. I understand. You've already testified you don't believe there's any possible
original expression of a Space Marines future warrior that's possible since 1990.
A. Right.

A "term" is, literally, meaningless without an associated concept.

Additionally, the expert witness doesn't address the "concept" at all, merely the "expression" of the concept of a "Space Marine."

Trasvi wrote:
Kind of agree with GW's lawyer there. Grindley was very much of the opinion "there is nothing new under the sun"

Q. I understand. You've already testified you don't believe there's any possible
original expression of a Space Marines future warrior that's possible since 1990.
A. Right.

While that may be true from a literary or philosophical standpoint, it doesn't seem very conducive to legal debate.

It is highly conducive to legal debate. The debate will not show GW's claimed unique IP in a good light. That is why GW want to exclude him.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I personally believe that "space marine" has well and truly left the dock... it's a very generic term.

It would seem that the expert agrees with you.

Except that's not exactly how the testimony from the expert reads in the quoted statement. It's not the term itself; but rather the concept.

It would seem that the expert disagrees with you.

GW has made a second Daubert motion, or a motion to exclude expert tetimony, so referred to due to the case law from which such motion practice is derived.

A Daubert motion seeks to exclude an expert's testimony because it does not qualify as expert testimony, i.e the expert is not an expert. GW is saying Grindley has done thins wrong in formulating his expert opinion.

This is interesting because I'm not sure how common it s to have an expert on copyright infringement. This lawsuit is breaking some new ground, partly because of how expansive the claims are. It is also interesting because the Judge already said that Merrett could testify about similarities between the accused works and the asserted works, that is, the judge has said essentially that lay opinion is okay when comparing one work of art to another, which is substantively what Dr. Grindley is doing.

In other words, GW argued, and won, to have Merrett compare asserted and accused works and opine that one is a copy of the other. Now, GW s attempting to exclude substantively similar testimony because it does not qualify as expert testimony. However, if one follows GW's own logic, and rulings by the judge, Dr. Grindley need not even be an expert to give his testimony. It s a pile of Lols.

weeble1000 wrote:

In other words, GW argued, and won, to have Merrett compare asserted and accused works and opine that one is a copy of the other. Now, GW s attempting to exclude substantively similar testimony because it does not qualify as expert testimony. However, if one follows GW's own logic, and rulings by the judge, Dr. Grindley need not even be an expert to give his testimony. It s a pile of Lols.

So wait. . . your telling me that GW is saying that they are right and everyone else is wrong! I am SHOCKED, APPAL. . . wait. . . nope that sounds about right.

GW is still playing the bully in this. Like they do every time. Should they lose I HOPE they take a step back and reassess their position a bit more.

weeble1000 wrote:
... if one follows GW's own logic...

Please don't.

It's just more fodder for an appeal, most likely. Given the way the court ruled on Merrett, this motion will be shot down, which gives GW another excuse to cry to the appellate court about the mean old judge picking on them in case of a disastrous jury verdict.

"We want all experts removed from the trial, as facts are irrelevant to this case and could only harm the plaintiff."

"We the Jury Find all Games Workshop's Copyrights and Trademarks either invalid or in the public domain."

As there is no summary in the OP and I've lost where it was in the thread, could someone remind me what the new (final) trial date is?

Iirc 6/17/13 but it may have been July instead.

I think it is this date:

Based upon the parties' joint request as expressed in their letter to the Court, the trial date of 4/22/13 is vacated and reset to 6/3/13 at 9:45 a.m. The parties are advised that the trial date will not be continued again, and that they are expected to make appropriate arrangements to try the case starting on that date irrespective of what contingencies may occur between now and then.

There we go. I was off by 2 weeks. Even sooner!!!

Anyone wanna take bets on GW trying for a push back again, regardless of what the court has said?

That's a bet I won't touch.

czakk wrote:
I think it is this date:

Based upon the parties' joint request as expressed in their letter to the Court, the trial date of 4/22/13 is vacated and reset to 6/3/13 at 9:45 a.m. The parties are advised that the trial date will not be continued again, and that they are expected to make appropriate arrangements to try the case starting on that date irrespective of what contingencies may occur between now and then.

So quick on the draw czakk. You da man.

weeble/czakk/any-other-legal-types - what do you think the odds are that GW will be successful with the motion to get rid of Dr Grindley?

141 pages. D: Is there a summary of this?

To put it very briefly, Dr Grindley argues that by the mid 1980s, 1990 at the latest, it had become effectively impossible for an artist to conceive of a "future soldier" wearing large shoulder pads, etc, by independent original creation.

This is due to the massive amount of imagery and literature such as Starship Troopers, Aliens, Judge Dredd, plate armour knights, samurai, and so on, which an artist could not have avoided entering his mind.

Obviously this would invalidate GW's claims of copyright in their models, so the GW lawyer argues against it. There is much amusing repartee as Dr Grindley uses his academic training to verbally fence with the lawyer.

Is there a transcript of that around? Or a recording? Would love to hear GW's lawyer being told "your copyright is invalid mate" by someone who can defend their posiition.

Nobody_Holme wrote:
Is there a transcript of that around? Or a recording? Would love to hear GW's lawyer being told "your copyright is invalid mate" by someone who can defend their posiition.

You can find these midway through page 117. Or better yet, just click this PDF.

Be forewarned, it is very dense and you won't find the quote you're looking for there, not quite like that. My advice is to just skim the next few pages after those transcripts, as the legal dakkaroos have already mined out the amusing nuggets and dissected them for you.

Thank you kindly, sir.

 Dysartes wrote:
weeble/czakk/any-other-legal-types - what do you think the odds are that GW will be successful with the motion to get rid of Dr Grindley?

Low. GW already lost one motion to exclude Grinley's testimony, and as I pointed out, it seems that the Judge is already of the opinion that the substance of Grinley's testimony is effectively admissible lay opinion. Further, GW's arguments, if accepted by the court, could begin to make it effectively impossible for anyone to be an expert in a copyright case.

GW is saying that because Grindley did not explicitly do a study to determine how objectively common every single element of every single work is in the context of the entire sci if genre and beyond, his analysis of the commonality of such elements is fundamentally flawed, useless, and not proper expert opinion. Bear in mind that GW was trying to get Grindley to go all he way down into the number of bootlaces when comparing one work to another.

To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

But if no one can claim a copyright on the shoulder pads, then CH can create them without issue.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

Intended use means nothing to copyright. The item is either objectively a copy or it isn't. In this case, the items are SIMILAR, and GW is arguing that the similarities are close enough to constitute infringement of their work.

The counter argument is that GW's shoulderpad is not original enough to afford it any sort of copyright protection, and that argument is a strong one.

So the crux of the defense is that one cannot infringe upon a copyright that does not exist.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

So is every Chevrolet targeted or what ever brand car accessory, or gun sights so on so forth. You dont see auto companies trying to sue accessory makers.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

If I said "Well, it's not obvious to me.", how would you then prove that they were intended for GW Space Marines?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

Fine. How does that make them illegal now? Is it illegal to produce tires for a Ford? Only if GW had the copyright on Roman numbers, arrows, fur and big rounded shoulder pads, there might be a chance. That's what GW is desperately trying to claim. That's why they don't want anyone telling the jury, that GW can't own the copyright on Roman numbers, fur and big rounded shoulder pads.

That particular conversational thread is long-since exhausted. If you want to reread the back-and-forth, feel free to do so; we're not going to revisit it again.

 Elemental wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

If I said "Well, it's not obvious to me.", how would you then prove that they were intended for GW Space Marines?

Lets add to this "That is acceptable by 12 of your peers who will at the same time be confronted by someone trying to prove the exact opposite"

Trust me, common sense ~or what goes for it on the GW side~ does not go into a court. Common sense is thrown right out.

OH if you say "well if I put it on this model here then it is". Easy rebuttle is, "would that shoulder pad fit on these dozen of other models produced by a different company each?"

Trust me, any good attourney worth their salt can prove and disprove this case. It really comes down to chraisma how much you can get the Jury to like what you have to say, just as uch as it will come to the facts.

 Janthkin wrote:
That particular conversational thread is long-since exhausted. If you want to reread the back-and-forth, feel free to do so; we're not going to revisit it again.

On that subject, would it be possible to keep the topic title up to date with the latest developments, so that we can see what the current topic is about, and when developments happen in the case?

Motion to dismiss was about 2 years ago. What are we on now? Motion to exclude expert witnesses? Soon the trial.

Another transcript is up, but unavailable online:

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 4/25/2013 before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. Court Reporter Contact Information: Valarie M. Ramsey valharam@aol.com (708) 860-8482.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the CourtReporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 6/14/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/24/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/22/2013. (rp, )

Czakk, do we know from the schedule what those proceedings are likely to have been?

Also - question to the floor - how much is it usually to purchase one of these transcripts from the Court Reporter/Transcriber?

Motions in limine and a pre-trial conference on the 25th I think. I think it costs 10 cents a page to get a transcript from pacer - however unlike other pacer documents it doesn't cap out after 3 dollars, they'll charge you for every page.

Search for 2013-04-25

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html

 Dysartes wrote:
Czakk, do we know from the schedule what those proceedings are likely to have been?

Also - question to the floor - how much is it usually to purchase one of these transcripts from the Court Reporter/Transcriber?

The trial will be over by the time that transcript is accessible to the public. I wouldn't worry about it. It is the pretrial conference, and the court subsequently posted its rulings. One side or another requested a transcript of those precedings, probably to make an argument regarding the outstanding motion in limine issues.

The trial is on Monday, so by this point most of the court's rulings will be made from the bench or in conference. There likely won't be much to see before opening statements. That'll be the place to be on Monday if you are in Chicago. Openings will probably be right after lunch going by Judge Kennelly's preferred method of jury selection, which as planned would have a jury struck and in the box before lunch. Clearly, his honor does not follow the American Bar Association's recommended voir dire and jury selection procedures.

Monday?! After all this time it's suddenly upon us. Wish CH best of luck. Any Dakkites actually going?

-10 Internets to anyone that actually turns up that doesn't have to be there.

The result and judgement is interesting, actually being there for hours/days/weeks wouldn't be.

A trial where you know what is going on can be quite interesting. If I was in Chicago I'd be there for sure.

czakk wrote:
A trial where you know what is going on can be quite interesting. If I was in Chicago I'd be there for sure.

Me too.

I have a sneaky feeling that the vast majority of GW's claims will be rejected, but that they've thrown enough mud that one or two of them will stick.

weeble1000 wrote:
Openings will probably be right after lunch going by Judge Kennelly's preferred method of jury selection, which as planned would have a jury struck and in the box before lunch. Clearly, his honor does not follow the American Bar Association's recommended voir dire and jury selection procedures.

Could you elaborate a little, weeble? This sounds interesting - and, unfortunately, like a pre-laid ground for appeal...

 Dysartes wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Openings will probably be right after lunch going by Judge Kennelly's preferred method of jury selection, which as planned would have a jury struck and in the box before lunch. Clearly, his honor does not follow the American Bar Association's recommended voir dire and jury selection procedures.

Could you elaborate a little, weeble? This sounds interesting - and, unfortunately, like a pre-laid ground for appeal...

No, no grounds for appeal. The Judge can pretty much do what he wants when it comes to jury selection, within certain parameters, of course, but jury selection procedures nationwide vary considerably.

The American Bar Association has a recommended procedure that I happen to agree with: pre-trial questionnaires, oral voir dire, etc. etc. Compared to these recommendations, which I feel are essential to maintaining the integrity of the justice system, Judge Kennelly's jury selection procedure falls rather short in several significant aspects.

The only meaningful bit is that jury selection will be over before lunch, so opening statements will likely take place after lunch, after which the jurors will likely be dismissed. Openings in a 40 hour trial will probably be 45-90 min, but I would bet on 60. It depends on the court though. Judge Kennelly may say that both sides only have 15 min. for openings and leave it at that. I have seen that happen before. But the likely scenario is 45-90 min.

In other words, if you want to see some interesting stuff, go to the courtroom after lunch on Monday and watch both parties give their opening statements. If the trial was a movie, that would be like watching the extended trailer. If it was a book, it would be like reading the cliff's notes. You may be intrigued and want to see more, or you may realize that you've seen all the good parts and watching the rest would be a waste of time.

Edit: Remember though that the jury has to watch the movie, whether or not they thought the trailer sucked. Giving a lackluster opening is therefore rather damning to a case. Some attorneys believe (although I professionally disagree) that a trial is won or lost in opening statements. I would not go that far, but I will say that a good opening is essential to an effective trial presentation, and a bad opening will cause potentially irreparable harm to one's case.

It is like starting in a race. A good start is essential. A great start can help a not-so-perfect runner succeed anyway, or make a good runner's win a virtually foregone conclusion. A bad start can cripple your chances for a win, no matter how good you run.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Openings will probably be right after lunch going by Judge Kennelly's preferred method of jury selection, which as planned would have a jury struck and in the box before lunch. Clearly, his honor does not follow the American Bar Association's recommended voir dire and jury selection procedures.

Could you elaborate a little, weeble? This sounds interesting - and, unfortunately, like a pre-laid ground for appeal...

No, no grounds for appeal. The Judge can pretty much do what he wants when it comes to jury selection, within certain parameters, of course, but jury selection procedures nationwide vary considerably.

The American Bar Association has a recommended procedure that I happen to agree with: pre-trial questionnaires, oral voir dire, etc. etc. Compared to these recommendations, which I feel are essential to maintaining the integrity of the justice system, Judge Kennelly's jury selection procedure falls rather short in several significant aspects.

We get by just fine in Canada doing jury selection based solely on name, occupation, and area of residence, with a handful of peremptory challenges and maybe, just maybe the ability to ask if someone is biased against a race. Of course it is illegal to talk about jury deliberations up here, so almost impossible for jury consultants to get any real data about what sorts of jurors favour what sort of arguements etc...



-------

Some of the examinations in chief and the cross examinations should be interesting too. Dr. Grindley for instance...





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of Dr. Grindley, we can expect CHS response to GWs motion soon:

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, May 29, 2013:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Response to plaintiff's motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Grindley, which was filed on 5/20/13, is to be filed by 12:00 noon on 5/31/13. (mk)

czakk wrote:


We get by just fine in Canada doing jury selection based solely on name, occupation, and area of residence, with a handful of peremptory challenges and maybe, just maybe the ability to ask if someone is biased against a race.


But then again, this case wouldn't be heard by a jury in Canada, it would be judge alone.

Well, czakk, Canadians can do things how they like up in Canada .

In any case, this is off topic. Always interesting to discuss such issues though. I am, obviously, personally biased about it as an important part of my job is striking juries.

Showing bias when in for jury selection gets you kicked out of the pool quick, at least it did for me, when I answered a questions with, "Once a felon, always a felon."

 Debbin wrote:
Showing bias when in for jury selection gets you kicked out of the pool quick, at least it did for me, when I answered a questions with, "Once a felon, always a felon."

Yea, that's what we call a challenge for cause.

czakk wrote:
just maybe the ability to ask if someone is biased against a race.

I love Tau and Eldar, but Orks not so much. Does that count?

There was a proposed list of jury questions floating around, but I don't remember which filing it is.

czakk wrote:
There was a proposed list of jury questions floating around, but I don't remember which filing it is.

"Do you feel that GW neglects Xenos armies to focus on the many iterations of Space Marines?"

At which point someone will show the list of codices running back for a year or two and show that...that's not the case!

So what is the forecast for trial length? I heard months back that the judge wanted closing arguments Friday morning, is that still correct? Can we expect a verdict that quickly? Seems like such a short time for a case with huge implications beyond it's own small scope.

 Aerethan wrote:
So what is the forecast for trial length? I heard months back that the judge wanted closing arguments Friday morning, is that still correct? Can we expect a verdict that quickly? Seems like such a short time for a case with huge implications beyond it's own small scope.

Given Judge Kennelly's comments, the timeline is going to be followed pretty much down to the minute. My going theory is that by providing a timeline shorter than GW and CHS wanted Kennelly was suggesting that GW cut / drop / or settle a bunch of the claims rather than being left with ~20 hours to try to explain their expansive and vague claims to a confused jury.

He's also preserving judicial resources and saving the taxpayer money.

czakk wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
So what is the forecast for trial length? I heard months back that the judge wanted closing arguments Friday morning, is that still correct? Can we expect a verdict that quickly? Seems like such a short time for a case with huge implications beyond it's own small scope.

Given Judge Kennelly's comments, the timeline is going to be followed pretty much down to the minute. My going theory is that by providing a timeline shorter than GW and CHS wanted Kennelly was suggesting that GW cut / drop / or settle a bunch of the claims rather than being left with ~20 hours to try to explain their expansive and vague claims to a confused jury.

He's also preserving judicial resources and saving the taxpayer money.

I absolutely agree with his tactic, both in terms of getting one side to give up what they feel are "crap" claims, and in terms of saving court/state resources.

So if each side has 20 hours, and assuming court is an 8 hour day, we're looking at 40 hours +5%(unless he intends the entire case be finished in exactly 40 hours before deliberation) then a few hours for the jury to decide? That would put the verdict at 6/10/13 by my count.


Side note, can one volunteer for jury duty? I'd have paid to fly myself out there to be part of this.

 Aerethan wrote:

czakk wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
So what is the forecast for trial length? I heard months back that the judge wanted closing arguments Friday morning, is that still correct? Can we expect a verdict that quickly? Seems like such a short time for a case with huge implications beyond it's own small scope.

Given Judge Kennelly's comments, the timeline is going to be followed pretty much down to the minute. My going theory is that by providing a timeline shorter than GW and CHS wanted Kennelly was suggesting that GW cut / drop / or settle a bunch of the claims rather than being left with ~20 hours to try to explain their expansive and vague claims to a confused jury.

He's also preserving judicial resources and saving the taxpayer money.

I absolutely agree with his tactic, both in terms of getting one side to give up what they feel are "crap" claims, and in terms of saving court/state resources.

So if each side has 20 hours, and assuming court is an 8 hour day, we're looking at 40 hours +5%(unless he intends the entire case be finished in exactly 40 hours before deliberation) then a few hours for the jury to decide? That would put the verdict at 6/10/13 by my count.

I can't speak to the US system, but I think it is very similar to my own. "Court days" are around 6 hours long on a good day. Generally speaking there is an a hour and a half in the morning, a 30 minute break, go until lunch, have an hour break, go until around 230, have a break, and then end around 430. I think Kennelly said they might go later than 430 (5 pm or maybe even 530) in order to get through the trial faster.

That's not to say the judge rolls in at 930 and then goes home right away. Normally there is a lot of reading to be done and the judge has to be 'switched on' the whole time (so does the jury you hope). In our system that doesn't use juries for most civil cases the judge is sitting there reading all of the transcripts and affidavits long into the night and checking on the parties legal submissions (or having their clerk do it ).

The lawyers on each side will also be in 'trial mode' and working very long days.


-----

Edit - here we go, from the judge himself:

If one assumes a trial day of five and one-half hours, a relatively generous assumption, this would indicate a trial of about 14 full days. This does not include the time needed for jury selection.

The Court sets aside the following dates for trial in this case: June 3, 2013 (a.m. session - jury selection; p.m. session - trial), June 4-7, 2013, June 10-11, 2013, and, if needed for closing arguments, the morning of June 12, 2013.

The trial day typically will extend from 9:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 1:30 or 1:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., with morning and afternoon breaks. The Court notes that this is longer than its typical trial day. The Court reserves the right to extend any given trial day to 5:30 if warranted in order to complete the trial within the dates set aside.

The Court allocates a total of forty hours to the trial. The Court allocates half of this time to plaintiff and half to defendant – twenty hours per side.

The Court believes this to be a fair and equitable calculation and distribution given its understanding of the evidence and the fact that the case involves both claims that Games Workshop must prove and affirmative defenses that Chapterhouse must prove.

(http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.361.0.pdf)

As much as I want to see Chapter House win, I shudder at the thought of the Endor celebrations that will ensue. Mods take note: Dancing Ewoks should be shot on sight.

In this regard the good news is that Chicago politics is notoriously corrupt, which puts the odds in GWs favor.

What do Chicago politics have to do with a federally appointed judge? Or a UK based gaming company?

No. --Janthkin

czakk wrote:
There was a proposed list of jury questions floating around, but I don't remember which filing it is.

It is in the Proposed Pre-Trial Order. Those questions are case specific questions to be added to Judge Kennelly's standard SJQ.

Considering that 30 months ago Chapter House only produced;

Carnifex to Tervigon conversion kit
Shoulder pads with signs on
Doors with signs on
er...
That's it (I think)

It's difficult to see why the GW claims should be so long.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Considering that 30 months ago Chapter House only produced;

Carnifex to Tervigon conversion kit
Shoulder pads with signs on
Doors with signs on
er...
That's it (I think)

It's difficult to see why the GW claims should be so long.

They had the not-Kroxigors, the Cathedral Missile Launchers, and something else...

Edit: Surprisingly, the CHS website (which I just checked to confirm "new releases" has this to say:

Due to legal obligations forcing me to be in Chicago, IL from May 30th to no later then June 13th, all orders placed during these weeks will be shipped out on Saturday, June 15th. Please place orders and plan accordingly.



I appologize for any delay and hardship this will incur on your hobby and games.



Sincerely,

Chapterhouse Studios LLC - Nick Villacci

Looks like we should have everything wrapped up by the 13th!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Considering that 30 months ago Chapter House only produced;

Carnifex to Tervigon conversion kit
Shoulder pads with signs on
Doors with signs on
er...
That's it (I think)

It's difficult to see why the GW claims should be so long.

did I miss something, or wasn't there a new action filed in the past few months? and didn't the judge consolidate the actions?

EDIT: or maybe i completely misunderstood what it was that happened over the past year..... 0_o

czakk wrote:

The lawyers on each side will also be in 'trial mode' and working very long days.

Yea, and Jonathan Moskin has himself and....Jason Keener. Maybe he will have a paralegal assisting, but there are no other attorneys on the case for GW. A 40 hour trial over one and a half weeks involving thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of claims, and a respectable amount of live witnesses...I would not want to do that with a 2 person team.

Even the little state court PL cases I have worked involve more substantive teams.

weeble1000 wrote:

czakk wrote:

The lawyers on each side will also be in 'trial mode' and working very long days.

Yea, and Jonathan Moskin has himself and....Jason Keener. Maybe he will have a paralegal assisting, but there are no other attorneys on the case for GW. A 40 hour trial over one and a half weeks involving thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of claims, and a respectable amount of live witnesses...I would not want to do that with a 2 person team.

Even the little state court PL cases I have worked involve more substantive teams.

Perhaps Moskins firm has decided to let him sink with the ship and not throw any more bodies into it? Hard for anyone at this point to really think GW has a SOLID case. They have an uphill battle in this.

So for those of us interested in the Jury questions... they seem kind of interesting, a few I went wtf at and then thought about it.

7. Proposed Voir Dire Questions
1. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever played any miniature war-games?

2. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever collected and/or painted figurines?

3. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever attended any gaming conventions?

4. Have you ever heard of Games Workshop, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, or Warhammer 40K?

5. Have you ever read a book published under the “Black Library” label?

6. Have you ever heard of Chapterhouse Studios?

7. Do you have any knowledge about or experience with copyrights or trademarks,including applying for a copyright registration or a trademark registration?

8. Have you ever been involved in the creation or selection of a trademark?

9. Have you ever been involved in the creation of an artistic work (book, painting, sculptor, etc) that was sold to others?

10. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever made a claim of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, or patent infringement?

11. Have you ever considered filing for a copyright, trademark registration, or patent registration but decided not to?

12. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever been accused of infringing another's copyright, trademark, or patent?

13. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever worked in sales or marketing?

14. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever been a member of a union?

15. Have you, a relative or close friend worked for commission, either currently or as part of a previous job?

Chapterhouse additionally proposes the following jury questions:
16. Do you use generic medicine?

17. Do you own a smart phone/blackberry/iphone?

weeble1000 wrote:

czakk wrote:

The lawyers on each side will also be in 'trial mode' and working very long days.

Yea, and Jonathan Moskin has himself and....Jason Keener. Maybe he will have a paralegal assisting, but there are no other attorneys on the case for GW. A 40 hour trial over one and a half weeks involving thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of claims, and a respectable amount of live witnesses...I would not want to do that with a 2 person team.

Even the little state court PL cases I have worked involve more substantive teams.

Well.. on the bright side Mr. Keener should have little trouble hitting his billables target?

There should be a couple of junior associates working on the file in the background as well.

-----

I'm looking forward to seeing costs motions and how much has been spent by the end of the trial.

I still think GW have to convince the jury that toy soldiers are really, really important and must be taken very seriously indeed. I would have thought there's a risk the whole thing will be seen as being a bit petty and childish by people from outside our hobby.

 Aerethan wrote:

Perhaps Moskins firm has decided to let him sink with the ship and not throw any more bodies into it? Hard for anyone at this point to really think GW has a SOLID case. They have an uphill battle in this.

Moskin and the firm get paid win or lose. He's spun what should have been a quick crushing defeat of an unrepresented garage business into a juicy multi-year trial with a ton of very very pricy motion practice. He's probably pulled in billables for him, Keener, and a host of juniors. Since he's been doing the solicitor's work for GW in the background as well, he might have been the partner that landed GW as a client and get an additional cut on top of his normal earnings. (depending on how they handle compensation at his firm / finders fees etc...).

Obviously better for him if he wins though

czakk wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

Perhaps Moskins firm has decided to let him sink with the ship and not throw any more bodies into it? Hard for anyone at this point to really think GW has a SOLID case. They have an uphill battle in this.

Moskin and the firm get paid win or lose. He's spun what should have been a quick crushing defeat of an unrepresented garage business into a juicy multi-year trial with a ton of very very pricy motion practice. He's probably pulled in billables for him, Keener, and a host of juniors. Since he's been doing the solicitor's work for GW in the background as well, he might have been the partner that landed GW as a client and get an additional cut on top of his normal earnings. (depending on how they handle compensation at his firm / finders fees etc...).

Obviously better for him if he wins though

He's also been on a ridiculously short leash financially. GW has been cutting corners from day 1. GW motions are rife with errors and were slapped together in haste, likely with no review by lead counsel. GW declined to do either video or audio recordings of any deposition. GW squealed at any sort of cost, and has repeatedly complained about the defense "spending lavishly."

I would not be surprised if Moskin has been doing this thing on a reduced fee. GW is not a dream cash cow client. GW is a burdensome, contentious, vexatious, problematic client that wants a miracle result without having to pay for it. Simply put, GW is a client from Hell, and if the trial goes badly, Jonathan E Moskin will probably be blamed for the whole thing. If CHS slams in a solid win, I would bet even money that GW sues Foley and Lardner for malpractice (you heard it here first).

Edit: And given that Moskin was personally sanctioned by the Court, well....I can't say that GW wouldn't have a colorable argument to make.

Reading that document with GW's proposed instructions to the jury -

They really are trying to conflate all the issues together and claim that a specific item could be infringing the whole 40K universe.

That strikes me as ridiculous, but worrying, as is demonstrated by some of the uninformed opinions we've seen in this thread.

weeble1000 wrote:

czakk wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

Perhaps Moskins firm has decided to let him sink with the ship and not throw any more bodies into it? Hard for anyone at this point to really think GW has a SOLID case. They have an uphill battle in this.

Moskin and the firm get paid win or lose. He's spun what should have been a quick crushing defeat of an unrepresented garage business into a juicy multi-year trial with a ton of very very pricy motion practice. He's probably pulled in billables for him, Keener, and a host of juniors. Since he's been doing the solicitor's work for GW in the background as well, he might have been the partner that landed GW as a client and get an additional cut on top of his normal earnings. (depending on how they handle compensation at his firm / finders fees etc...).

Obviously better for him if he wins though

He's also been on a ridiculously short leash financially. GW has been cutting corners from day 1. GW motions are rife with errors and were slapped together in haste, likely with no review by lead counsel. GW declined to do either video or audio recordings of any deposition. GW squealed at any sort of cost, and has repeatedly complained about the defense "spending lavishly."

I would not be surprised if Moskin has been doing this thing on a reduced fee. GW is not a dream cash cow client. GW is a burdensome, contentious, vexatious, problematic client that wants a miracle result without having to pay for it. Simply put, GW is a client from Hell, and if the trial goes badly, Jonathan E Moskin will probably be blamed for the whole thing. If CHS slams in a solid win, I would bet even money that GW sues Foley and Lardner for malpractice (you heard it here first).

Edit: And given that Moskin was personally sanctioned by the Court, well....I can't say that GW wouldn't have a colorable argument to make.

I understand the financial reasons that firms want long suits that drag on. But wouldn't they see the loss in court as a negative? Or would they say "the client's actions prevented a win from day one"?

What did GW expect out of this once pro bono representation signed on for CHS? Did they not think that CHS might just try to bleed them while they could?

Winning isn't free, or even cheap.

well, intitially I thought someone had to be intentionally stupid to be doing some of these things that have gone on in this case, but now that some useless clown has left our firm and i'm picking up where she left off.... my god. How does one read "130th avenue" out of "310 shawville boulevard"??????? how does one list an undertaking completed, when the undertaking is a very vague request, with the response from only one location that has been contacted for information out of a possible seven is "nope, we dont know what this is"??? How does one send two requests to one location in the same week and not have the memory to recall "oh hey, i sent this request a few days ago, no need to send this". How does one completely ignore the contents of a file, fail to cross-reference undertakings to see if file X answers Y,W and Z before sending requests to Y W and Z that will cost $300 to produce? I'm starting to realize there's a lot of laziness and outright incompetence involved, and the two seem to be much more common than one would think.

I'm starting to believe that a lot of this case wasn't so much planned as the product of laziness and outright ineptitude. I imagine there are better ways of discrediting an expert witness than battering him over and again with the same questions until his tongue slips, and there are better ways of dealing with a court case once you realize that the other side has pro-bono counsel. I mean sure, if there's enough trash in the claim, you might drive the other side out of business in terms of legal fees, but sawing your own arm and leg off into the deal?......

 Aerethan wrote:

I understand the financial reasons that firms want long suits that drag on. But wouldn't they see the loss in court as a negative? Or would they say "the client's actions prevented a win from day one"?

Civil litigation is a crap shoot - most cases (90% or so) settle before going to trial. That usually leaves the cases that are too close to call, involve a really unclear or novel legal point, or the high conflict clients (people unwilling or unable to settle) in the system. A loss is a negative, but might be unavoidable.

czakk wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

I understand the financial reasons that firms want long suits that drag on. But wouldn't they see the loss in court as a negative? Or would they say "the client's actions prevented a win from day one"?

Civil litigation is a crap shoot - most cases (90% or so) settle before going to trial. That usually leaves the cases that are too close to call, involve a really unclear or novel legal point, or the high conflict clients (people unwilling or unable to settle) in the system. A loss is a negative, but might be unavoidable.

Surely a settlement is preferred to a loss? Granted, I don't see either side settling in the next 3 days. GW is in too deep to pull out, and CHS has virtually nothing to lose and therefore no reason to pull out.

 Alfndrate wrote:
So for those of us interested in the Jury questions... they seem kind of interesting, a few I went wtf at and then thought about it.

7. Proposed Voir Dire Questions
1. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever played any miniature war-games?

2. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever collected and/or painted figurines?

3. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever attended any gaming conventions?

4. Have you ever heard of Games Workshop, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, or Warhammer 40K?

5. Have you ever read a book published under the “Black Library” label?

6. Have you ever heard of Chapterhouse Studios?

7. Do you have any knowledge about or experience with copyrights or trademarks,including applying for a copyright registration or a trademark registration?

8. Have you ever been involved in the creation or selection of a trademark?

9. Have you ever been involved in the creation of an artistic work (book, painting, sculptor, etc) that was sold to others?

10. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever made a claim of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, or patent infringement?

11. Have you ever considered filing for a copyright, trademark registration, or patent registration but decided not to?

12. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever been accused of infringing another's copyright, trademark, or patent?

13. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever worked in sales or marketing?

14. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever been a member of a union?

15. Have you, a relative or close friend worked for commission, either currently or as part of a previous job?

Chapterhouse additionally proposes the following jury questions:
16. Do you use generic medicine?

17. Do you own a smart phone/blackberry/iphone?

1-12 questions .... general information gathering

13 ... can kind of see this, but huh?

14 .... WTF does being a proud, union worker have to do with this trial?

15 .... eh ... I can see this as far as commissioned painting and what not goes ... but if I was commissioned to build a bridge ... what does that have to do with anything?

16 ... generic medicine? are they trying to put out there that they are like amoxicillin ( however you spell that ) instead of penicillin?

17 ... This one I understand ... if we have a smart phone then we can look up chapterhouse and GW on our free time.

People who view generic the same quality as brand name would generally side with CHS in this case, as they are the "generic" types. That or they feel that trademarks are meaningless if the product is inherently the same.

I think you'll find Q15 relates to 13, as in your income is linked to your sales, not having something you produce requested and purchased by somebody.

Ashitaka wrote:
Reading that document with GW's proposed instructions to the jury -

They really are trying to conflate all the issues together and claim that a specific item could be infringing the whole 40K universe.

That strikes me as ridiculous, but worrying, as is demonstrated by some of the uninformed opinions we've seen in this thread.

That has been GW's attitude all along.

They adopt a generic trope, like shoulder armour, and it becomes part of the 40K background. Everything in 40K becomes solid copyright of GW.

Then if anyone makes shoulder armour they have infringed the GW copyright.

On Q.15, don't forget that there was a lot of discussion on who did what for GW on commission and who held the rights to what afterwards.

Q.17 - I think this is more to do with similar products fulfilling a similar function as a further example of generic ideas in copyrights, etc.

It shouldn't be what you suggest as the Judge should make such things clear before hand. Jurors shouldn't investigate things themselves, they'll likely find this thread which would undoubtedly affect their ability to make a verdict. It would be nice if the jury knew of the various dirty tricks that GW have got up to in the last two years but it would invalidate the trial and land the juror in a lot of trouble.

My question is: a non-union member in Chicago? That's almost as tough as finding one in Detroit.

First, these are proposed supplementary questions. The Judge will ultimately decide which to include and how they will be worded.

Second, an experienced trial consultant can make potentially valuable inferences from such questions. An experienced lawyer can as well, but generally speaking a trial consultant is better it as they are specialists and have oodles more experience and years of qualitative and quantitative research to inform their analyses.

Why those questions? Well, doubtless one side or the other felt that they would yield important information, or one side or another felt that some or all of the submitted questions had strategic value, i.e. mislead or confuse the opposition. If you know a question has little practical value, but the opposing party does not, you can ignore the responses while the opposing party wastes valuable time interpreting superfluous data.

One may also wish to give the impression that a certain type of information is important, or is indicative of bias in favor of one party or another.

The questions that a party submits can be as instructive as the data the question provides.

Now, the defendant has retained the services of a trial consultant while the plaintiff has not, to the best of public knowledge. GW has mentioned the defendant's retention of trial consultants when decrying the defendant's "lavish" spending. The presumption is that the plaintiff has not retained such services, but that is simply a presumption based on the fact that the context of the relevant statement was to compare what the defense spent money on that the plaintiff had not spent money on.

Is that consultant going to be striking the jury? There's no way to know. Did the consultant have input into the SJQ? Again, there's no way to know. Has the consultant done any research? Again, no way to know. But unless GW was lying, the defendant has, at some point and for some purpose, retained the services of trial consultants.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
17 ... This one I understand ... if we have a smart phone then we can look up chapterhouse and GW on our free time.

My suspicion is that they want to make a "CHS is to GW as downloadable apps are to Android" argument. Nothing wrong with buying something with YOUR money to work with a system created by someone else that you also bought with YOUR money. Right? Right? Right?


Eric

 MagickalMemories wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
17 ... This one I understand ... if we have a smart phone then we can look up chapterhouse and GW on our free time.

My suspicion is that they want to make a "CHS is to GW as downloadable apps are to Android" argument. Nothing wrong with buying something with YOUR money to work with a system created by someone else that you also bought with YOUR money. Right? Right? Right?


Eric

Either that, or the 3rd party accessories angle.

weeble1000 wrote:

Now, the defendant has retained the services of a trial consultant while the plaintiff has not, to the best of public knowledge. GW has mentioned the defendant's retention of trial consultants when decrying the defendant's "lavish" spending. The presumption is that the plaintiff has not retained such services, but that is simply a presumption based on the fact that the context of the relevant statement was to compare what the defense spent money on that the plaintiff had not spent money on.

I don't see that GW has any moral right to moan about the defence having 'lavish' spending when it was GW that first enlisted lawyers to go on the attack on a tiny company like CHS. What's to be gained from these crocodile tears? They threw their lawyers at someone who luckily managed to get pro-bono defence with a firm prepared to put up serious money? Well boo hoo for GW, don't go round threatening legal action if you're not prepared to pay for it.

It also seems a bit much that GW has done their best to prevent CHS revealing just how small a company they are and needing pro-bono representation to stand any chance of defence, but now GW slam them for spending 'lavishly' on that defence. Ugh.

 Alfndrate wrote:

13. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever worked in sales or marketing?

I can understand this one. Selling and marketing is all about branding, and how you present that brand. Part of GW's argument is that CHS is copying and diluting the GW brand.

14. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever been a member of a union?

Not quite sure about this one, but I assume it goes towards the idea of workers' rights, which could be part of the commission aspect, as GW is trying to claim they own the works of commissioned artists (and that GW just happened to lose the original contracts stating that ownership)

Chapterhouse additionally proposes the following jury questions:
16. Do you use generic medicine?

Again, all a part of brand awareness. Is the local grocery store brand of acitaminophen seen as the the same thing as Tylenol?

17. Do you own a smart phone/blackberry/iphone?

Probably the third party accessories argument in action here. Can Apple sue all of these companies making iPhone case and accessories? Can Ford sue O'Reilly Autoparts for selling a generic brand gas cap?

When it comes to jury selection, some correlations are relatively mysterious, but in such cases the data is what it is, and some demographic issues are quite the opposite of what you would expect them to be.

For example, in many circumstances, similarity to the plaintiff in a personal injury or product liability case is good for the plaintiff, but the data shifts depending on the circumstances. In the case of severe injuries, such as traumatic brain injuries, quadriplegia, etc., similarity to the victim is actually bad for the plaintiff. People begin to protect themselves from the possibility that something like that could happen to them by creating distance between themselves and the plaintiff.

There must have been something wrong with that guy. That would never happen to me because I don't do X, Y, or Z. You get a similar reaction in car accidents in particular. People do not like to think that a similar accident could simply happen to them too, so they blame the plaintiff rather than the product.

Those, of course, are just broad generalizations, and as with any case, there are many, many different factors to consider. Consequently, the best guide to jury selection is experience. When you've watched hundreds and hundreds of people deliberate on similar issues, you develop a sense for the sort of person who will likely favor a particular viewpoint.

When you get down to it, people are very similar.

There's an episode in the first season of the Showtime series Dead like Me where Daisy Adair explains her categorization of the people she reaps, all of whom she takes polaroids of. Daisy sorts them into boxes by personality type, a practice that Georgia dislikes, but by the end of the episode, Georgia comes to realize that Daisy has a point about being able to categorize people, even though on the surface it seems impersonal and demeaning. That is what trial consulting is about; being able to look at a person and quickly, efficiently, and accurately sort them into a 'type' of person.

When we hired a new paralegal a few years back, I was at a mock trial teaching him how to prepare seating charts for the three mock juries the 30+ research participants were being divided into. During the process he asked about why I had sorted the group the way I did, and I explained my reasoning, pointing out who the likely foreperson would be in each jury and giving some general predictions about how certain individuals would behave and how the deliberation would likely progress. When I was finished he said that I was being very stereotypical, and I told him that this was my job: examine a limited set of demographic data and place people into categories - Middle-aged, married, latino, Catholic, high school educated, blue collar, male from East Texas.

I have seen that person before. I have seen that person dozens of times. I have seen that person behave a certain way over and over and over again. When I go to strike a jury, and I see that person, I generally know what to expect. Beyond that it is a matter of understanding case themes, human decision-making, the facts of a case, the arguments and evidence of the parties, and gathering as much additional reliable data as possible to cross-check the core analysis.

SJQ questions provide data, but the utility of the data may seem esoteric. As I mentioned, the questions may even be completely useless, and have no meaning other than to screw with the opposing party. It could be that whichever party submitted the questions that are being discussed intended the opposing party to waste their precious jury selection time doing exactly what you are doing.

Do you ever look at the potential jurors' shoes? Odd question, but when my mom was working with a layer back during a trial thing, her layer said she would always look at their shoes, and those with nicer shoes were generally more intelligent and responsible people and would make greater jurors in her experience.

TragicNut wrote:

 MagickalMemories wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
17 ... This one I understand ... if we have a smart phone then we can look up chapterhouse and GW on our free time.

My suspicion is that they want to make a "CHS is to GW as downloadable apps are to Android" argument. Nothing wrong with buying something with YOUR money to work with a system created by someone else that you also bought with YOUR money. Right? Right? Right?


Eric

Either that, or the 3rd party accessories angle.

I thought about that, except that you can have 3rd part accessories for non-smart phones, too.

Here's my reasoning:
CHS makes 2 things: accessories and actual models.

The accessories are meant as add-ons for GW *and other* brand models. They are not stand alone products. They are made to enhance products created by another entity. You could use the "accessories" angle on smart phones well as a representation of this, but I think there are LOTS of other examples you could come up with for accessories that would work as well, or better. On the other hand, the actual models are meant as something bought to be used in-game to represent something in a system created by another entity. Not only does the smart phone app comparison work well for this, but I think this would be a harder aspect to find comparisons for than the accessories angle. KWIM?

Then again, it could be there because they intend to use it for BOTH.

Eric

 AduroT wrote:
Do you ever look at the potential jurors' shoes? Odd question, but when my mom was working with a layer back during a trial thing, her layer said she would always look at their shoes, and those with nicer shoes were generally more intelligent and responsible people and would make greater jurors in her experience.

Clothing is significant. Everybody has different tricks. I always check to see who takes a smoke break, for example. But generally speaking, choice of dress can be useful information.

What does the smoke break tell you?

Recap hasn't been updated since 333, so has Prof Grindley been excluded?

Cheers

Andrew

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

14. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever been a member of a union?

Not quite sure about this one, but I assume it goes towards the idea of workers' rights, which could be part of the commission aspect, as GW is trying to claim they own the works of commissioned artists (and that GW just happened to lose the original contracts stating that ownership)

My thoughts on it are actually that much of the time Unions are seen as adversarial to large companies. GW may be feeling that Union members or friends/family of union members might not be well disposed toward a big corporation trying to force the little guy to bend a knee.

weeble1000 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Do you ever look at the potential jurors' shoes? Odd question, but when my mom was working with a layer back during a trial thing, her layer said she would always look at their shoes, and those with nicer shoes were generally more intelligent and responsible people and would make greater jurors in her experience.

Clothing is significant. Everybody has different tricks. I always check to see who takes a smoke break, for example. But generally speaking, choice of dress can be useful information.

Makes mental note to dress poorly next time one gets called for Jury Duty.

I fell asleep during juror selection once, and they still picked me.

 adamsouza wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Do you ever look at the potential jurors' shoes? Odd question, but when my mom was working with a layer back during a trial thing, her layer said she would always look at their shoes, and those with nicer shoes were generally more intelligent and responsible people and would make greater jurors in her experience.

Clothing is significant. Everybody has different tricks. I always check to see who takes a smoke break, for example. But generally speaking, choice of dress can be useful information.

Makes mental note to dress poorly next time one gets called for Jury Duty.

I fell asleep during juror selection once, and they still picked me.

They might have wanted an empty chair. Most deliberations are substantively limited to 3-4 jurors. Maybe they figured that you would fill a seat and not participate much. It would be very risky to make that judgement based solely on the fact that you fell asleep.

 AndrewC wrote:
Recap hasn't been updated since 333, so has Prof Grindley been excluded?

Cheers

Andrew

There is a more up to date list here:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html

369 and 370 are up. Both have exhibits I haven't paid for. 370's are probably more interesting.

369 is CHS giving GW a pretty rough ride over their motion. Worth a read. 370 is a list of the depositions both sides intend to use at trial, with the depositions themselves showing up as exhibits. Also, I think there are some objections which if I recall correctly Kennelly said would count against their trial time.



Interesting bit quoted from a hearing:

The Court also noted at the hearing on GW’s first motion in limine, that even though it held that GW’s shoulder pads had copyrightable elements, CHS could still argue “there’s a bazillion and one shoulder pads out there” so “the defense of fair use might be, well, [it] isn’t all that copyrightable.” Cooper Decl. Ex. 1, 4/10/13 Tr. at 61:4-13. GW’s second bite at the apple on this identical issue should be denied.

So Kennelly is a bit more aware of how generic shoulder pads are than we gave him credit for based on his summary judgment.


And a good quote from the judge about Grindley's use of pictures:

As the Court previously ruled, this type of comparison is sufficient under the circumstances:

See, I've got to tell you, Mr. Keener, when you tell me that all Grindley says is, well, anybody looking at this chart could figure out what I was going to say about it, I think I could have. I'm not sure I'm anybody, but when I see this what I'm looking at here, it's pretty obvious that what he's going to say is that, you know, the stuff that they're saying that was infringed here, it's out there. There's a lot of things like this.

So the judge is finally putting his opinion on some items! Methinks this will be a good trial.

Dr. Grindley is my new hero... also he's on twitter, but apparently uses it with his Yelp app... a shame really.

So.. what I took from those last documents was GW tried to exclude Grindley from being a witness, they were shot down but told they could try to exclude his supplemental report, and they took that as an ok to refile the same motion to exclude him as a witness (just with different wording).
That about sum it up?

 jonolikespie wrote:
So.. what I took from those last documents was GW tried to exclude Grindley from being a witness, they were shot down but told they could try to exclude his supplemental report, and they took that as an ok to refile the same motion to exclude him as a witness (just with different wording).
That about sum it up?

Yea, that about sums it up.

And we've now seen how the Judge feels about these issues. Kennelly is basically saying, 'Yea, well, these things Grindley is showing look a whole hell of a lot alike GW's artwork. I think that is pretty clear, and you don't have to be an expert to see that.'

That's a rough ride for GW. The Judge has also basically said that a finding of from the jury of non-infringement on the shoulder pads, either by straight non-infringement or via fair use, basically means GW's shoulder pad copyright is so narrow as to be meaningless.

Have a fun time at trial GW.

Edit: Oh, and if the jury does something like, say, invalidating the 'Space Marine' trademark, I wonder who gets to break the bad news to Tom Kirby. And I also wonder what all of those new IP licensees will think about a piece of property they have just paid for suddenly ceasing to exist.

weeble1000 wrote:


Edit: Oh, and if the jury does something like, say, invalidating the 'Space Marine' trademark, I wonder who gets to break the bad news to Tom Kirby. And I also wonder what all of those new IP licensees will think about a piece of property they have just paid for suddenly ceasing to exist.

Can a jury invalidate a trademark?

 Morpheus wrote:
Can a jury invalidate a trademark?

Absolutely, just like they can invalidate a patent.

How often does that actually happen though?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How often does that actually happen though?

It depends. I don't do many trademark cases, as they rarely go to trial. However, an unregistered mark is not entitled to a presumption of validity, so the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence; i.e. more likely true than not.

'Space Marine' is a registered mark, but it is arguably a very, very, very weak mark, if it is valid at all. The phrase "Space Marine" is generic, descriptive, in common usage, and has been used several times in the same category of goods prior to GW's usage of the mark. Games Workshop has admitted that it has done no advertising in 30 years of business, and the Judge has already ruled that none of Games Workshop's marks are famous. Strictly speaking, that is not really germane to a determination of validity, but since when is a juror able to appropriately compartmentalize evidence?

Patents are by far more difficult to invalidate than trademarks, and I have seen plenty of patents invalidated. Patents are always entitled to a presumption of validity, and as a general rule are particularly difficult to invalidate. Nevertheless, it happens more often than you might think.

Invalidating a trademark? My guess is that it is much easier to do in comparison. patents are hard to invalidate because they appear to be the product of hard work. They go through a presumably rigorous period of examination and sometimes re-examination, presumably by experts in the field of art. A patent can relate complex technology, and be the product of years of work and/or hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D. Patents can be the cornerstone and the basis for the existence of tangible products like life-saving medication or cell phones. Patents are inventions, ostensibly real things, rather than merely a way to identify the creator of that thing.

Who on the jury will have heard of Games Workshop? Who on the jury will have heard of Warhammer 40,000? Who on the jury will know what table-top wargaming is?

Who on the jury will have seen Aliens? Who on the jury will know what Star Wars is? Who on the jury will know exactly who Buzz Lightyear is and what he looks like?

Invalidating the Space Marine mark...who knows. If you were Alan Merrett, would you trust 12 people in Chicago who didn't know Games Workshop from a hole in the ground? Would you walk into trial believing that there was no way, no way at all, that those 12 people would take away the 'Space Marine' trademark?

And it aint just Space Marine on the chopping block. Everything is on the block. Everything GW has asserted is on the block and the ax is in the air.

Have fun at trial GW.

But even the worst case scenario will allow GW to try to apeal and still send C&D letters to intimidate 3rd party bits. Or does a clear victory for CHS open the floodgates on GW "not so set in stone" trademarks?

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
But even the worst case scenario will allow GW to try to apeal and still send C&D letters to intimidate 3rd party bits. Or does a clear victory for CHS open the floodgates on GW "not so set in stone" trademarks?

M.

my take on this is case will determine the current boundaries of what GW can protect, it all depends on how the case goes. If GW loses, it doesn't mean free game on everything, just free game on what GW lost on. In a worst case scenario, GW will likely get its gak together, get some proper copyrights filed. In the best case scenario, whatever copyrights GW does file for, will probably be vague to take advantage of the precedent. Either way, this kind of speculation is off topic for this thread, and we'll start seeing in about a month or two what the fallout is.

edit: Haaaah. Best and worst case scenarios are as described from the perspective of the plaintiff: GW

Pending the outcome of the trial, perhaps the "titans" of this thread could help work out a boilerplate response to a GW C&D?
You know, with proper reference to this case, with a wording that implies no admission of guilt and message of "Feth off" worded nicely.

I realize that each answer depends very much on the exact wording of the C&D in question, but I still think it would be very helpful to small businesses presented with a C&D from GW.
Furthermore I very much acknowledge that securing proper legal advice is by far the safest course of action, and that such a boilerplate answer couldn't and shouldn't be seen as a "get-out-jail-free" card.
Lastly such a boilerplate answer could not refer to our legal "titans" in any way, shape or form as I understand that while some of you have a proper legal education your are not OUR legal representatives.

And other really annoying caveats......

-------------------------------------------------------

This post actually demonstrated the exact reason why such a boilerplate answer would be helpful.
Some of us might need help wording the proper caveats and finding the proper caveats to word.

So - how do you think Dr. Grindley is likely to come across to a jury, from how he depo'd? Do you think they'll be turned off by his... dickishness, shall we say? Or do you think he will be a sympathetic figure for his snappy and often humorous answers?

 Ouze wrote:
So - how do you think Dr. Grindley is likely to come across to a jury, from how he depo'd? Do you think they'll be turned off by his... dickishness, shall we say? Or do you think he will be a sympathetic figure for his snappy and often humorous answers?

He seems to be fairly well liked by students (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=815398). And given the length of his deposition (like 8 hours?) without him losing his temper, he should be able to handle being on the stand.

 poda_t wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:
But even the worst case scenario will allow GW to try to apeal and still send C&D letters to intimidate 3rd party bits. Or does a clear victory for CHS open the floodgates on GW "not so set in stone" trademarks?

M.

my take on this is case will determine the current boundaries of what GW can protect, it all depends on how the case goes. If GW loses, it doesn't mean free game on everything, just free game on what GW lost on. In a worst case scenario, GW will likely get its gak together, get some proper copyrights filed. In the best case scenario, whatever copyrights GW does file for, will probably be vague to take advantage of the precedent. Either way, this kind of speculation is off topic for this thread, and we'll start seeing in about a month or two what the fallout is.

edit: Haaaah. Best and worst case scenarios are as described from the perspective of the plaintiff: GW

Except that the US Copyright Office has refused to register the Space Marine shoulder pad. Except that in the UK, toys are probably covered by design right, meaning the bulk of GW's product range can no longer be protected.

 Ouze wrote:
So - how do you think Dr. Grindley is likely to come across to a jury, from how he depo'd? Do you think they'll be turned off by his... dickishness, shall we say? Or do you think he will be a sympathetic figure for his snappy and often humorous answers?

He held his cool longer than the GW lawyer in that interview thing we all read, if he does come across dickish at all I think it'll be overshadowed by GWs reaction. I also imagine if he isn't asked the same question 8 times in a row he'd be much more pleasant.

czakk wrote:

There is a more up to date list here:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html

Thank you czakk.

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
So - how do you think Dr. Grindley is likely to come across to a jury, from how he depo'd? Do you think they'll be turned off by his... dickishness, shall we say? Or do you think he will be a sympathetic figure for his snappy and often humorous answers?

I think Dr Grindley is an extremely intelligent individual, and as such will tailor his responses to his audience. He knew that the GW team were gunning for him during the depo and responded accordingly. I also think that he will be aware that the jury won't be up to 'clever' answers but will answer with candour and humour. I think thats why GW are so concerned about him.

Cheers

Andrew

Will GW try to hinder the US Copyright Office from taking part in the trial?

Steelmage99 wrote:
What does the smoke break tell you?

No idea what it means to a lawyer but from my standpoint with working with people who both smoke and do not smoke I do note some differences.

However as a non smoker myself I must say I have no hard evidence just anecdotal evidence. The closest thing I can describe it to is having to pee.
Depending on how many and how often someone smoked the point where the craving for the next nicotine fix begins, which is where peeing comes in. If you really have to pee but don't you can forget about it for a time, then you begin to think about it more often, become more and more uncomfortable until you have to leave whatever it is you are doing to go to the bathroom. If you are thinking about peeing you are not thinking about what you are doing as much as you would if your bladder was empty.
Therefore, if the person is craving their nicotine fix they aren't in the room with you as much as someone who is not craving. I notice it in psychotherapy and on ward rounds all the time, sometimes it is pointless going on with the person until they have gone and had a smoke, then they can concentrate on what is happening again.

Noel

 Kroothawk wrote:
Will GW try to hinder the US Copyright Office from taking part in the trial?

The copyright office has the right to show up, they can't be stopped from taking part. However, they don't have to show up if they don't feel like it.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Pending the outcome of the trial, perhaps the "titans" of this thread could help work out a boilerplate response to a GW C&D?
You know, with proper reference to this case, with a wording that implies no admission of guilt and message of "Feth off" worded nicely.

I realize that each answer depends very much on the exact wording of the C&D in question, but I still think it would be very helpful to small businesses presented with a C&D from GW.
Furthermore I very much acknowledge that securing proper legal advice is by far the safest course of action, and that such a boilerplate answer couldn't and shouldn't be seen as a "get-out-jail-free" card.
Lastly such a boilerplate answer could not refer to our legal "titans" in any way, shape or form as I understand that while some of you have a proper legal education your are not OUR legal representatives.

And other really annoying caveats......

-------------------------------------------------------

This post actually demonstrated the exact reason why such a boilerplate answer would be helpful.
Some of us might need help wording the proper caveats and finding the proper caveats to word.

I'd like to second this, as I think a lot of people are scared away from being a CHS-style compatible-bits startup precisely because they don't know or have the resources to find out how to respond to a GW C&D letter. A response letter, even a generic one, would really help small startups in figuring out how to respond.

weeble1000 wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:
But even the worst case scenario will allow GW to try to apeal and still send C&D letters to intimidate 3rd party bits. Or does a clear victory for CHS open the floodgates on GW "not so set in stone" trademarks?

M.

my take on this is case will determine the current boundaries of what GW can protect, it all depends on how the case goes. If GW loses, it doesn't mean free game on everything, just free game on what GW lost on. In a worst case scenario, GW will likely get its gak together, get some proper copyrights filed. In the best case scenario, whatever copyrights GW does file for, will probably be vague to take advantage of the precedent. Either way, this kind of speculation is off topic for this thread, and we'll start seeing in about a month or two what the fallout is.

edit: Haaaah. Best and worst case scenarios are as described from the perspective of the plaintiff: GW

Except that the US Copyright Office has refused to register the Space Marine shoulder pad. Except that in the UK, toys are probably covered by design right, meaning the bulk of GW's product range can no longer be protected.

well, i'm not talking about the pad. How about the winged teardrop, or the stylised angular/stone block imperial eagle? THESE are things that can definately be protected... or... maybe not ?

Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

 darkPrince010 wrote:


I'd like to second this, as I think a lot of people are scared away from being a CHS-style compatible-bits startup precisely because they don't know or have the resources to find out how to respond to a GW C&D letter. A response letter, even a generic one, would really help small startups in figuring out how to respond.

Anything generic or boilerplate wouldn't be worth anything and might actually harm you. If you get a C&D, you need real legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Spend the money and get legal advice before starting a business. You might not get a C&D, they might just sue you like they did CHS.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

Blindfold? I don't think I recall ever seeing an actual blindfold. I do know only one head shows as having an eye though.

 AduroT wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

Blindfold? I don't think I recall ever seeing an actual blindfold. I do know only one head shows as having an eye though.

What blindfold? The two heads represent the Treaty of Mars/Treaty of Olympus, representing Terra and Mars.

 Enigwolf wrote:

What blindfold? The two heads represent the Treaty of Mars/Treaty of Olympus, representing Terra and Mars.

That's changed several times. Most recent one, IIRC, was that it represented the Imperium forgetting the past and looking toward the future, IIRC. OR possibly the other way around.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

What blindfold? The two heads represent the Treaty of Mars/Treaty of Olympus, representing Terra and Mars.

That's changed several times. Most recent one, IIRC, was that it represented the Imperium forgetting the past and looking toward the future, IIRC. OR possibly the other way around.

Or, the Emperor in his infinite wisdom, decides that it means all of the above.

czakk wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:


I'd like to second this, as I think a lot of people are scared away from being a CHS-style compatible-bits startup precisely because they don't know or have the resources to find out how to respond to a GW C&D letter. A response letter, even a generic one, would really help small startups in figuring out how to respond.

Anything generic or boilerplate wouldn't be worth anything and might actually harm you. If you get a C&D, you need real legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Spend the money and get legal advice before starting a business. You might not get a C&D, they might just sue you like they did CHS.

*scratching head*. For some reason I thought there was something about them actually having received a couple of C&Ds but they were put in the round file. I've been wrong before though.

xraytango wrote:

czakk wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:


I'd like to second this, as I think a lot of people are scared away from being a CHS-style compatible-bits startup precisely because they don't know or have the resources to find out how to respond to a GW C&D letter. A response letter, even a generic one, would really help small startups in figuring out how to respond.

Anything generic or boilerplate wouldn't be worth anything and might actually harm you. If you get a C&D, you need real legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Spend the money and get legal advice before starting a business. You might not get a C&D, they might just sue you like they did CHS.

*scratching head*. For some reason I thought there was something about them actually having received a couple of C&Ds but they were put in the round file. I've been wrong before though.

GW actually said in an early complaint that there was no contact between GW and CHS prior to service of the suit.

Thanks Weeble.

So GW basically went, "Ready, Fire, Aim!"

Seems like bad practice to me. If Moskin is their N.A. In-house (not necessarily in-house per se but held by retainer) could that have been his advice?

Granted a C&D is more of a courtesy than anything, but it is usually the first thing to try.

With all the sanction on Moskin, is it possible that GW will file a complaint with the BAR? And what penalties do theses sanction actually entail, or are they simply marks on a record that have no real pain behind them?

It will be interesting to see how the jury reacts to him as he seems to be quite abrasive, well more than most attys.

No offense to our associated barristers.

 AduroT wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

Blindfold? I don't think I recall ever seeing an actual blindfold. I do know only one head shows as having an eye though.

Well I don't know if it's a blindfold, maybe I am thinking of the blindfold on Justice. It could be a blind eye or something. It's blind, anyway.

The point is that the blindness is the only significant difference between the GW eagle and a thousand other double-headed eagles found in heraldry and decorative arts.

I believe GW have also trademarked it, but they don't display it in any of their business signage. You would expect a trademark to be on product boxes, for example. The only places you actually find it are on the wall of the Nottingham building, and on various model bits of equipment belonging to IG and what-not in which it forms part of the decoration of the model.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

Blindfold? I don't think I recall ever seeing an actual blindfold. I do know only one head shows as having an eye though.

Well I don't know if it's a blindfold, maybe I am thinking of the blindfold on Justice. It could be a blind eye or something. It's blind, anyway.

The point is that the blindness is the only significant difference between the GW eagle and a thousand other double-headed eagles found in heraldry and decorative arts.

I believe GW have also trademarked it, but they don't display it in any of their business signage. You would expect a trademark to be on product boxes, for example. The only places you actually find it are on the wall of the Nottingham building, and on various model bits of equipment belonging to IG and what-not in which it forms part of the decoration of the model.

And, as was demonstrated in Leonard Wibberley's The Mouse That Roared the Duchy of Grand Fenwick can also be a mite touchy, sparking the short but victorious war of Grand Fenwick vs. The United States of America - on the basis of the wholly derivative Pinot Grand Enwick label.


Such a little thing to begin a war over... but then they were planning on being defeated by Saturday....



The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I believe GW have also trademarked it, but they don't display it in any of their business signage. You would expect a trademark to be on product boxes, for example. The only places you actually find it are on the wall of the Nottingham building, and on various model bits of equipment belonging to IG and what-not in which it forms part of the decoration of the model.

It is on model boxes though.

Is it? I hadn't noticed.

Perhaps they have started to put it on there since I stopped buying new GW models a couple of years ago, or maybe it isn't very eye-catching.

It's not on blisters, but I think it's been on their boxes for years. Anyway, it's quite stylised and they are consistent in its appearance so I don't see that they shouldn't have protection on their specific version. The sharp angles and specific dimensions make it look different to most classically 'imperial eagles' on the internet.

Of course on a miniature an eagle is so small that you can't see any of that detail, but as a logo to use in print I think they can reasonably argue for it.

I watched this tread from its initiation with great interest, I refrained from commenting even though I am quite touchy on many claims by GW especially the twin headed eagle that is an ancient symbol used in my country for more than a millennium (close to two).

But I really want to ask this, can GW's background that is ever changing and in many cases conflicting with itself hurt them in this case showing the do not even have a continuity and integrity of their own background, a recent example is how many different explanations the imperial eagle has.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I watched this tread from its initiation with great interest, I refrained from commenting even though I am quite touchy on many claims by GW especially the twin headed eagle that is an ancient symbol used in my country for centuries.

But I really want to ask this, can GW's background that is ever changing and in many cases conflicting with itself hurt them in this case showing the do not even have a continuity and integrity of their own background, a recent example is how many different explanations the imperial eagle has.

This is hence the reason why GW tries to trademark and copyright everything it can - Rhino variations themselves are trademarked IIRC. Unless it can be shown that the constant change affects the trademark, I don't think it'll hurt them.

Some kind soul has paid for and uploaded all the recent filings to recap (http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html). There are some transcripts in there where we get to hear the judge talking. It's good reading:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.369.2.pdf

18 THE COURT: Because that's what people do on the
19 Internet, they just sort of foam at the mouth?

Must be talking about a frothers posting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh

THE COURT:
Why would I want to enter a terminating sanction?

The case is going to be so fun to try.

The record will reflect a tinge of sarcasm

Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE COURT: We're going to -- sadly, we're going to have to get together one more time. Nothing personal. Well, sort of.

Ooh, I like this from Moskin:

"Games Workshop customers. They are all -- at least the best customers are all participating or many of them are participating on the forums."

GW clearly missed a trick, getting him to do legal advice for them when he could be doing their marketing instead. Gosh. Imagine if GW had a representative on Dakka, actually directly communicating with its best customers, looking out for us, addressing our queries and concerns, giving us a few hints and rumours in advance. I, for one, would buy more GW stuff. Sorry. Off-topic. Ish.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

GW clearly missed a trick, getting him to do legal advice for them when he could be doing their marketing instead. Gosh. Imagine if GW had a representative on Dakka, actually directly communicating with its best customers, looking out for us, addressing our queries and concerns, giving us a few hints and rumours in advance. I, for one, would buy more GW stuff. Sorry. Off-topic. Ish.

Perish the thought!

I just have to say, that this document is quite the interesting read. It's long, and some of it is difficult for the layman to understand, but seriously, read it. Some interesting quotes, and really kind of nice to see how the judge 'feels' about some of the stuff that has been brought up.

The double headed eagle also appears on the inside of Russian Passports.

I propose the only way to deal with this is:

A Cage Match: Wells vs Putin

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Well I don't know if it's a blindfold, maybe I am thinking of the blindfold on Justice. It could be a blind eye or something. It's blind, anyway.

The point is that the blindness is the only significant difference between the GW eagle and a thousand other double-headed eagles found in heraldry and decorative arts.

There is a blind eye. IIRC, it's symbolism representative of the Adeptus Astra Telepathica and the fact that the binding ritual renders them blind.

Whether that blind eye makes it unique enough is, of course, a matter of debate.

Well regardless of our thoughts and deliberations on the matter, the people that count get to do their work tomorrow (unless they've moved it and I missed the fact).

Best of luck to all those involved, because I think that a few might need it.

Cheers

Andrew

Q So Ridley Scott's films, were they a
15 point of reference for the Warhammer 40K?
16 A It was not a point of reference,
17 probably discussion maybe, but certainly not a point
18 of reference.

So Blanche denies that Alien was a point of reference for the Tyranids. Interesting,

 Ketara wrote:

Q So Ridley Scott's films, were they a
15 point of reference for the Warhammer 40K?
16 A It was not a point of reference,
17 probably discussion maybe, but certainly not a point
18 of reference.

So Blanche denies that Alien was a point of reference for the Tyranids. Interesting,

This reminds me of how Starcraft was actually based off of 40k in the very, very, start... Wonder why GW didn't throw any C&Ds their way...

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Q So Ridley Scott's films, were they a
15 point of reference for the Warhammer 40K?
16 A It was not a point of reference,
17 probably discussion maybe, but certainly not a point
18 of reference.

So Blanche denies that Alien was a point of reference for the Tyranids. Interesting,

This reminds me of how Starcraft was actually based off of 40k in the very, very, start... Wonder why GW didn't throw any C&Ds their way...

No, no it wasn't, this is just an old internet myth that refuses to die.

Warcraft on the other hand during its pre-production had the idea thrown around to get GW to attach the Warhammer name to their game.

http://kotaku.com/5929157/the-making-of-warcraft-part-1

Allen Adham hoped to obtain a license to the Warhammer universe to try to increase sales by brand recognition. Warhammer was a huge inspiration for the art-style of Warcraft, but a combination of factors, including a lack of traction on business terms and a fervent desire on the part of virtually everyone else on the development team (myself included) to control our own universe nixed any potential for a deal. We had already had terrible experiences working with DC Comics on "Death and Return of Superman" and "Justice League Task Force", and wanted no similar issues for our new game.

 Ketara wrote:

Q So Ridley Scott's films, were they a
15 point of reference for the Warhammer 40K?
16 A It was not a point of reference,
17 probably discussion maybe, but certainly not a point
18 of reference.

So Blanche denies that Alien was a point of reference for the Tyranids. Interesting,

James Cameron's Aliens on the other hand was totally ripped off
BTW I don't think that Blanche did the design, Alan Perry was credited for designing the old metal hormagaunt.

Space Hulk on the other hand was quite obviously influenced by Aliens, and the tyranids in turn by the concept of genestealers - I still remember a guy in the shop selling Space Hulk to me as 'Aliens the Boardgame'

I don't think anyone looking at the Tyranid Hive Tyrant (or warrior for that matter), with the shape of it's head and carapace, can do anything but think of the alien queen from Aliens.. And if they show that kind of thing to a jury of course that is the first thing they are going to think.

-1 to John Blanche from this :(

Although I suppose there is the argument that the idea of a space-fairing insectoid race, organised in a manner similar to an ant or termite colony, came from the likes of Starship Troopers (or numerous other pulp sci-fi of the 60's).

 Pacific wrote:
Space Hulk on the other hand was quite obviously influenced by Aliens, and the tyranids in turn by the concept of genestealers - I still remember a guy in the shop selling Space Hulk to me as 'Aliens the Boardgame'

Be fair though, after Alien came out A E Van Vogt sued them for ripping off stories from Voyage of the Space Beagle, it settled out of court. There's no such thing as an original idea!

If I recall correctly, the trial was set to begin today. Any news if it has/hasn't?

It's listed on the judge's calendar. He also put out a bunch of rulings on sunday. Grindley is testifying, with some limits.

 Lansirill wrote:
If I recall correctly, the trial was set to begin today. Any news if it has/hasn't?

I emailed Nick about an order I made last weekend and he said he had court today and would have to email me info about my order later. Unless he's in court for something else, I'd say that it has.

I'm not sure we're going to hear much for a bit. I don't think proceedings will be published before the end of the trial and the people involved might not be able to talk about it until its over. I may be wrong, but we'll just have to wait for a bit.

from my experience being a juror in the UK, the jury will be instructed not to talk about or reserch the case but I don't see why the various parties shouldn't be able to talk about it..

Chicago is only about 2.5 hours away for me, and I have the time to go there for parts of the trial, but sadly no money :(

Oh well, we'll hear about things soon I'm assuming.

For the layman who doesn't fully understand the implications of what could come out of this trial (me!), could anyone spell out what the effect might on the wider wargaming industry, and the customer for that matter?

i.e. looking at an extreme result, in favour of either GW or Chapterhouse, what might the knock-on effects be?

I'm going to break this trial down in to what I see are three separate elements: trademarks, aftermarket parts, and new models.

Trademarks ("Shoulder Pads for Space Marines")
GW is saying that CHS unfairly used GW's trademarks to advertise CHS's products, in an way that could be or was intended to be misleading. CHS is likely to win, or at least not 'lose', on these claims. There is no real evidence that a sensible customer would have been confused; there were copious
'XX is a trademark of games workshop' notices, and CHS changed the offending product's names when the lawsuit began. Worst case for CHS, they get a token fine. Likely case for GW is that the judge finds a lot of GW's claimed marks invalid(?); their claims to 'plasma' and 'halberd' most certainly, but also things like 'Imperial Guard' or 'Star Fox' might also lose protection. Worst case for GW is that they lose some of their strong marks, 'Space Marine' in particular. This judgement would be fairly specific to the CHS/GW case.


Aftermarket Parts (Shoulder Pads, Heads, Weapons)
GW is saying that they own copyright on the universe of 40k. Not just on the works they have actually produced, but the ones which are inspired by their universe that they have yet to produce. In particular, they have numerous drawings of space marine shoulder pads, but don't produce them in miniature form.
Can a CHS sculptural work infringe on a GW drawn work? Does 'inspired by' necessarily mean 'derivative from'? Are parts 'designed to fit' or 'designed to match' necessarily infringing? Does the combination of a few non-protectable elements, used within a particular context, create a protectable expression?
This is a complicated issue with wider ramifications, not just for GW but for the wider industry of art, literature and film. What would happen if all the artistic work that went into space marine armour was considered obvious/generic/derivative and thus otherwise unprotectable? You could have games or film studios producing a Space Marine movie without needing to purchase a license from GW. Wider ramifications: Miniatures companies could produce entire ranges of models looking near-identical to Star Wars Storm Troopers without a license, and Lucas/(Disney) could do nothing about it.

If GW could win ownership of the particular shape and fit of the generic blank Space Marine Shoulder Pad, they would have more confidence in going after other companies who are producing similar parts. Similarly for rhino and drop pod doors. If CHS win, they can keep doing what they are doing.
For these parts, it seems unlikely that GW can claim uniqueness of design after the copyright office rejected their application, and GW seems only likely to prevent the production of specific logos on these shoulder pads. I think it is possible they might prevail on eg Templars or Salamanders shoulder pads.

As for the new models... on a case by case basis. Personally I hope that GW wins on things like the True-scale space marines and the Doomseer, because I think the consequences of allowing such things would be dire. The doomseer doesn't explicitly copy any single piece of GW art, but taken as a whole it is clearly meant to be a GW model. If things like this are allowed, then it is a short step to producing entire kits of OmegaMarines which, each very subtly different from any particular GW space marine miniature or artwork, is nonetheless interchangeable with a real GW marine. Then people start producing Storm Troopers with slight helmet variations, or SS Enterprises with slight changes in angles...

(If a real lawyer thinks this is wrong I'll be happy to delete it)

I'll admit, I want ot see CHS do a clean sweep of GW and get that worst case scenario going: The sad fact is that IP is reaching the point of becoming a psychosis and is now doing the exact opposite of what things like Berne were intended to do. Seeing GW swing would be just a crack in the wall, but it's still a crack, and the bigger the better.


And if you don;t think that Hollywood could make a SM movie without GW... I point you to 'Transmorphers'.

The concept that an entity (corporation,, artist, what have you) might not have 'ownership' of its intellectual properties across media (that an author of a book doesn't automatically own the 'movie rights' or the producers of a television show don't have the 'game rights') without first producing something based on said IP within that media-- well, that could be staggering. It opens fanfiction of non-literary works to potential publication, allows the sale of animated GiFs of famous works without licensing... all sorts of stuff that would make the wider internetted world cheer and whoop, open the floodgates of cross-media 'ripoffs' and possibly cause the complete colapse of the current IP ownership paradigm.

It could be big, if people are actually taking note of it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'll admit, I want ot see CHS do a clean sweep of GW and get that worst case scenario going: The sad fact is that IP is reaching the point of becoming a psychosis and is now doing the exact opposite of what things like Berne were intended to do. Seeing GW swing would be just a crack in the wall, but it's still a crack, and the bigger the better.


And if you don;t think that Hollywood could make a SM movie without GW... I point you to 'Transmorphers'.

There is a bit of a difference between Transmorphers and making an actual space marine movie. As I understand it, movies like transmorphers get away by using a suitably generic concept (giant robots), and generic or pun-laden titles, to get out of any direct infringement accusations. I'm talking about the absurd case that some people in this thread seem to be advocating, where the design of a Space Marine or Optimus Prime is deemed to be 'functional' and thus can be used anywhere without license.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Chapter House.

Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

I'll take the cop out answer of both but my opinion that they have a right to produce add on kits is the cake... them proving it in a court of law at little to no cost to themselves but at tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to GW is the icing on that cake.

A bit of both.

I believe that GW's actions against CH and other small companies have exceeded their actual rights, and worked to suppress a legitimate market in add-on parts, which would benefit the user.

It took huge balls by Chapter House to stand up to GW. It turns out that GW's case is much weaker than claimed.

Thus, I shall be pleased if GW are hoist by their own petard. They will be taught a lesson, and parts companies will be more free to provide the after-market bits that people want and GW don't make.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?

1.) I do not have the skill to sculpt. I'm not paying a prof sculptor to make me parts at $5/helmet or more for certain parts, like custom pauldrons or alternate backpacks
2.) I like variarion. GW isn't offering a bits service or the depth of variation to the parts I'm looking for
3.) I may not actually like a fair number of the designs released by GW, either in general, or when it comes to certain models, or certain models within certain roles
4.) I might be immensely lazy and want a tru-scale army without having to go through the effort of converting everything over myself
5.) I'm not all that creative. I know I hate GW's bonewsords for tyranids (seriously, i've gotten used to the guns, but actual SWORDS on tyranids.... it looks stupid to me. really stupid) and a lack of my personal creativity and lack of appreciation for GW options for gear means I want to see/use stuff from other places.
These are just the reasons that hit me offhand before wanting to rip into GW and the whole grab your torch and pitchforks thing over GW's policies, which I'm not going to launch into, or consider in answering your question. But, to answer it, yes, for the above itemised reasons, i'd like to see CHS win

The funny thing is that they closed down their bits store that largely prevented most indy bits sellers existence because it wasn't profitable enough. How many years worth of funding the bits portion of the business in its entirety would the court and legal fees GW from this trial funded?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

When it started I was all for GW since it seemed like a legitimate claim. The longer it goes on however the weaker that claim is, and there is all that business about trying to force artists to hand over their artwork and hiding evidence.

Now I am hoping they lose and have to think before sending more C&D letters about trademarks they don't own.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

I have no real spite for GW... Been collecting (since 2nd) and playing (off and on) for a long time. I don't like a lot of their practices and choices, but that happens with a lot of companies. That being said, I have no issue with other party manufacturers/casters making add-on kits and models representing never-before-molded stuff that GW neglects. I feel that GW "stole" a lot of their ideas from many other previous works. Why shouldn't others be allowed to do the same? I put quotes on the stealing part because I don't believe it is theft for someone to do as CHS does. Many ideas in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres have been put forth way earlier than GW and other companies could have claimed original conception. I also don't feel that they should have a strangle-hold on the term Space Marine, I found the whole Spots the Space Marine thing pretty darn despicable on their part. I am rooting for CHS in case, and by proxy, the many other small-guys that want to add to and enhance the hobby!

 warboss wrote:
The funny thing is that they closed down their bits store that largely prevented most indy bits sellers existence because it wasn't profitable enough. How many years worth of funding the bits portion of the business in its entirety would the court and legal fees GW from this trial funded?

To be fair keeping every bit for every model you produce available, in stock and on hand at all times is costly and wasteful. The parts service that GW replaced their old bits service with is anaemic in every way, but I do understand why they did it. They just, in typical GW style, swung that pendulum too far. Rather than offering a healthy middle ground they just cut things that didn’t need cutting leaving us with pointless overpriced bitz packs.

 jonolikespie wrote:
When it started I was all for GW since it seemed like a legitimate claim. The longer it goes on however the weaker that claim is, and there is all that business about trying to force artists to hand over their artwork and hiding evidence.

I think Chapter House had a lot of cheek and a mighty big chip on their shoulder when they had things like “Ultramarine Shoulder Pads” and “Flesh Tearer Shoulder Pads” and other various GW names on their website, but when GW started claiming implied rights to arrows and skulls I think the wind was taken out of GW’s sales, and by that stage CH had stopped using those types of terms on their website.

Personally I am rooting for chapterhouse because they make some products I really like. Overall I feel their presence is a positive for the wargaming community because they offer some good designs that give our armies variety and sometimes utility.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

It is actually a bit of both.

3rd party bits sellers are enhancing GW's product and benefiting all three parties involved. Morally, I feel Chapterhouse is justified.

The aftermarket car parts argument has been mentioned numerous times. Legally, I feel Chapterhouse is justifed.

As for spite, yes. Games Workshop shut down Raging Heroes's Lammasu head over a ridiculous claim only to re-release their inferior gak Lammasu a few months later. Raging Heroes backed down when their product wasn't even related to GW products in the slightest. I'm happy Chapterhouse isn't backing down and is fighting the good fight. GW needs to be put in their place.

In a sort of deviation from spite, I also want all those armchair lawyers that derailed all the Chapterhouse threads on Dakka and all over other forums to finally begiven a reason to shut up. Chapterhouse didn't pull any RomeoRages, but they lost their cool several times as people derailed their threads, It was annoying, it was off-topic, and it was distracting to customers. #firstworldproblems

That being said, freedom to produce parts is more important to me, of course. I have bought Chapterhouse products and wish for them to continue producing products,
So both, leaning heavily towards the right to produce.

I'm just in it for the chaos, really. There is nothing as depressing and horrible as a stagnant status quo. Change, or the possibility of change, are what makes life worth living. And GW losing this case, even if it's only a theoretical possibility (they can always withdraw the complaint, I was told?) is something worth watching and speculating over.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?

No spite. But creative work in tabletop gaming can't be done, if some bully lawyers try to drag anyone to court using the concept of a halberd, grenade launcher, Imperial Guard, future marine, Moorcock's Chaos star etc. All veteran sculptors including the ones at GW worked with inspiration from others, that's how it is done. A lawyer feeling like he invented God himself should not end creativity in the hobby. Or any second market. A bully lawyer doesn't compensate for bad sculpts or abysmal marketing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?
.

Because what GW will do if they win to all the smaller companies producing genuine quality '40k compatible' models is unthinkable.

You think they're legal bullies now?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?

I'm mostly for CHS because of the way GW has run the case; so much of it doesn't sit well with me; like trying to get copyright signatures retrospectively, not mentioning the Copyright rejection, the vague and overzealous case itself and the copyright bullying in general. Their bad/cynical business decisions of late haven't really enamoured me to them either.

I certainly also like the idea of 3rd party figures and parts though, as I'd certainly use 3rd party stuff if it becomes more 'acceptable', and whilst I'm unlikely to be doing much conversion work it's nice to know the products are there for those that want it. As GW has dropped the bits business I think it's unfair for them to deny anyone else the ability to make a go of it.

Plus as a Brit, we pretty much also root for the underdog

 azreal13 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?
.

Because what GW will do if they win to all the smaller companies producing genuine quality '40k compatible' models is unthinkable.

You think they're legal bullies now?

GW can't possibly win on all their points. And in any case, I can't really see a judgement in their favour stopping other bits people, like Kromlech, who are careful to use more generic descriptions (and produce more creative models, in general).

I think this case is more about general intimidation, rather than specific products. GW are picking on Chapterhouse, because Chapterhouse are much more aggressive about using GW terminology on their site.

From a practical perspective GW must loose because their claims can potentially put a stranglehold in the entire genre and more, claiming things like elves, sculls, space marines belonging to you has far wider implications than just the garage kit manufacturers making a living by augmenting GWs models, if I ever wanted to make a sci fi wargame focusing on powered armoured infantry and cal it "Space Marine Wars" its my right to do so and GW should not have any right in dictating me if I could do it, likewise the title itself is unprotectable and I could not enforce it to others because its a descriptive of a common use word, the example stands on why GW should lose, their recent aggression on "Spots the space marine" is a strong indicative on how far they are willing to go in "protecting their IP".

I do not want another "apple" especially in the miniature wargames genre.

Chapterhouse is not "aggressive" in their products, they are at worse honest, they make garage upgrade kits for GW line and do not hide behind their finger, if they recasted GW's parts, GW would have a case, but what they do is creating their unique sculpts intended to be compatible and to augment GWs products, what next, GW starting a resin bases line copyrighting "25mm round", "Sand" and going after microart and secret weapons?

Personally, I would rather see the giant that has ripped of, "or has been inspired" by everything creating nothing of their own be put into place be stripped of all the invalid claims they have over things that are not belonging to them and learn some humility, then they might thing twice in claiming millennium old symbols belonging to them, or saying thing like tyranids not been inspired by aliens.

Well, it looks like we will have to wait until the jurors get bored and start posting here.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, GW has lost. The case has forced GW to change is business practice. GW has become more secretive, and now does not include unreleased models in its codicies. The fact that it has included such models since time immemorial says alot. The other models help flesh out the world, and give more experienced hobbyists a chance to convert things and be creative. GW will also have to devote more resources to copyrighting and trademarking their products.

As much as I would like CH to win, I think that GW will win on several counts.

I'm interested in a CHS win because the idea of 3rd party accessories is a common one here in the US. It's prevalant in automotive and motorcycles (ever see a VW/Porshe conversion kit?) and other industries. I don't see why it is a dire threat should it happen in miniatures gaming.

Also, GW's heavy-handed copyright claims need to be checked. It's one thing to protect your IP but it's quite another to assert ownership over things you really don't own.

IMHO not a lawyer opinion:
I hope both sides win what they need to and get punished for what they did wrong. GW should protect it's corporate rights and establish it's IP boundries. None of this half-cocked C&D to everyone and their grandmother unless grandma is Russian and well...

As for CH they shouldn't have worded things as they did and should pull product if there are official GW/FW product. But I will hope the bits/conversions teach GW a valuable lesson: the stormguppy was ugly and I wasn't having it. I was looking at another marine army and I was leaning towards SW BUT the CH SR kit made me fall in love with blangles. I started to make a Knights of Blood chapter kitbashing SM/CSM and so I bought two SRs, a megaforce, split two DV sets, and metal boxes. Then when CSM were updated I bought more chaos kits (maulerfiend/helldrake etc) to make both the KoB and a Khorne army. Hundreds of dollars that GW and my FLGS got because of CH.

Do I think all of CH is great? No. GWs? No. The market tends to itself as I vote with my wallet, I buy what I like and GW needed CH to get my money for all those other kits.

I think that had GW simply been proactive about creating in-demand models and offering in-demand bits services they would not be in this current situation.

Not having Thunderwulf Cavalry,combi-weapons, Tervigons, and Tyrannofexes on codex release basically forced people into the secondary markets and created the niche that CH and others now exist within.

GW could man up to the market doling out this 'punishment' for complacency and outcompete those like CH, but instead attempt to proverbially run to their babysitter, spewing C&D letters the whole way.

I'm rooting for CH 'whole clothe' because of the truly ridiculous GW behavior that this trial process has revealed. Finding out that they do not actually own the copyrights to stuff that they've aggressively asserted copyright over is incompetence and disingenuous on a big scale.

It is one thing to allow your niche in a market to decay, as GW has done over the last 5 or so years. It is quite another to allow the biggest crybaby, just because they also happen to be the biggest single operator, to dictate how the entire market stagnates when the 'damages' they're accumulating are primarily the result of their own uncompetitive behavior and lack of vision.

All GW had to do to beat CHS was to release their 'infringing' items themselves.
If CHS complained, GW would have the original design to point to, and say it was their idea in the first place. CHS would have to back down, or keep selling alongside GW's identical items.
If GW could do that at a lower price, CHS goes down.

But no, GW decline to sell the items people want, and buy from CHS, and its ilk.
GW's legal behemoth rumbles into action, and here we are.

So, I'm rooting for CHS, and anyone else making Striking Scorpions with a full range of weapon options and Farseer jetbike riders. If GW don't, someone else will.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

I wouldn't say sprite. But GW have just become too big, nasty and aggressive. They are toxic to the well being of the wider hobby because of how aggressively and widely they cast the net to cover anything they want control of whether they own it or not, as in the case of many generic things.

CHS made a stand, finally someone got legal protection and fought back. The action against CHS came after a period of GW sending C&Ds to a number of out favourite miniatures companies telling them to take down figures, and several fan websites came under fire. It's not spite that makes me want to see GW lose badly, it's the need to see our hobby survive and grow unfettered by this huge company trying to control everything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

I want GW to win on the parts of the lawsuit where they said that CHS infringed by saying Ultramarine Shoulder Pads, Salamander Shoulder Pads. The part where CHS did not care about the trademarks.

I want CHS to win the portions where they are providing sculpts that are add on's that are not available elsewhere. If it's not provided by GW or it's a better product (or heck, even worse) I want the competition to be available. I honestly think GW went into this thinking they were the 900 lb gorilla in the room and not realizing they were full of hot air for most of it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

I think IP is shenanigans and should not exist period. No one much less a company should be able to "own" an idea. Its counter human evolution where ideas are refined and shared. In fact the Christian Church went through something like this (trying to suppress the printing machine), what would have happened if we had IP then and the Church be able to flat out own and deny the printing machine to the world. IP is as irrational as trying to cage an idea.

The fact that this would screw GW big time, is just an added benefit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

It's a mix: Here's the thing: Copyright was intended, in essence, as a way for writers and artists to protect their works from major corporations they couldn't hope to fight in court using their creative works free of charge. It's actually supposed to promote artistic expression. How it has become to be used, however, is to stifle that expression wherever possible.

Particularly with such expansive claims as are made by companies like Games Workshop, Hasbro, and a variety of media companies like Sony, BMG, etc, and all inclusive, far reaching laws like the DMCA. These companies abuse the system for their own gain and make the law do the reverse of it's intent, DMCA notices because a TV in the background of one shot is showing 1/10th of a second of their property. False DMCA claims against people to force them to take down their own content (the 'megaupload' ad was perhaps the most well known but there are a lot of others).

The only thing 'innovative' in all this is the many ways they exploit the law.

From my perspective, Games Workshop is a weak link in the IP Mafia, because they make a lot of mistakes. Companies like Time Warner, Sony, take staggering amounts of cash to fight in court compared to GW, and they're almost always settled out of court rather than face a ruling. I want to see GW's balls nailed to the wall, so to speak, because it weakens the cases of all those other companies who exploit the system. I doubt we'll get the sort of crushing victory that would break them, but every little bit helps.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?



[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

While interesting, this whole line is off-topic.

With the trial actually going on now, let's continue to limit this thread to discussion of the details of the happenings of the lawsuit. If you want to take this conversation elsewhere, feel free, so long as people remain polite.

Im not against GW in all this or CHS. For the most part GW are the Backbone for most if not all tabletop miniatures, And company's like CHS make there living off of that back bone. As do the hundreds of YouTube channels, podcasts and Forums, dedicated to wargaming I am against the aggressive nature that GW uses in these cases though.

I am worried about the implications of what would happen if GW does loose the case of Copyright though. I'm finding it hard to word at the moment but I guess the easiest thing to say would be "Better the devil you know"

This entire thing is because GW created a gap in the market by deleting the bitz service, then they got mad when others filled that gap.

GW felt it wasn't worth the money to keep the Bitz service, but one has to wonder how long they could have kept it running using the money they'll end up spending in total on this single lawsuit which they may very well lose.

GW could have scaled down the bitz service, instead they shot it in the head.

Sorr, Jankthin..

Deleting post for continuing the OT discussion.

So do we have any way of finding out what has transpired in the court? Or is it we are going to have to wait till the documents are filed at the end of the trial?

Just curious when the next "official" update of the trial will be.

Yeah, all the speculation, i just want to know what's been decided

Nothing has been... the trial just started. After each side gets their 20 hours (they don't filibuster it all at once btw) they'll still have to deliberate. You haven't missed anything due to the speculation.

I don't believe court papers get released until after some time either. So we just have to sit tight and wait.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
For the most part GW are the Backbone for most if not all tabletop miniatures,

I'd have a problem with "most" but "if not all" takes your statement way over the line. Let's not mince words here, there's no way that even the most catastrophic legal outcome for GW would have repercussions to the man on the street when it comes to tabletop miniatures. And as it stands, that contingency is an extremely remote one. GW is not a load-bearing pillar of the industry, nor is this case likely to cause serious disruptions in the way of things. The most likely outcome is much more probably going to be a muddled compromise that leaves both sides grumbling and turns the entire affair into a damp squib.

Reality is far, far more drab and tedious than fiction, after all.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Those wanting Chapter House to win: Is it out of spite towards or because you think they (and companies similar to them) have a genuine right to produce the types of things they produce?
[EDIT]: And while I realise that "Why can't it be both?" is technically a valid answer to that question, but I'd like to know which reason is more important to you.

For several reasons, completely agree with KillKrazy; I hope CHS knock a hole in them.

The reason being.. well where do I begin? The crushing of fan websites (at least half a dozen you can care to mention), the company's biggest fans who managed to mis-step for usually a single minor infringement, and then had to suffer repeated pelvic thrusts to the face as reward for years of functioning as free marketing for GW's games.

Of other websites and fan communities turned into timid little mice, run by brown-nosing sycophants trying desperately not step on a hidden land-mine with a company that doesn't give a flying poo about them, and that will send that C&D letter condemning them just as surely the moment someone errs. It's something I've seen happen to several small communities, the change discernible, and the arguments caused by it and to the overall detriment of everyone that was part of that community.

Of trying to take ownership of the likes of 'space marine', and of creatures from mythology, of basic geometric shapes. Of then exhibiting cunning and dishonesty in attempting to take legal ownership of old artwork ("oh..sorry we lost the bit of paper where you said we owned everything in your painting")

And not only of being a 'bully', and using their weight to push around the 'little guy', but also generally just stifling creativity and art that has sprung from their games. In the purest terms its an antithesis of everything that the company once stood for, and is the sign more than anything else of GW's transformation into a bloated, corporate entity for which the prospect of doing what it does well, and for 'arts sake', has been well and truly eclipsed by the need to pander to sales departments and shareholders.

And who actually wants these things listed above? For me it is all about a legal department that has been given far too much free reign in trying to justify its existence. If this aggressive action stops (I think Howard A Treesong used a great adjective for it when he described it as 'toxic'), and this action costs GW a lot of money for no appreciable benefit, then perhaps someone in upper management with their finger on the pulse will decide that a change of tact is needed; of trying to cater to the fanbase, rather than dictate to it, of making it inclusive and to let the GW hobby grow.

Personally I think it's about time someone holds a hand up to them and says "no", or plants a staff in the ground (on a thin stone bridge, above a gaping chasm) and tells them they can't pass for that matter! I think the analogy is fitting.. if they get a bloodied nose from trying to flippantly crush CHS (who, lets be honest, really couldn't have been causing any discernibles harm to the company's sales) then perhaps everyone, maybe even GW themselves in the long run, will come out of it the better.

Anyway guys, let's try and get the thread back on topic.

Perhaps we could talk about the moral background of GW vs CH in a separate thread.

Man. None of you guys in Chicago could go to the hearings?

 kronk wrote:
Man. None of you guys in Chicago could go to the hearings?

None of them wanted to be bored to tears.

Dakka Dakka got a shout out it appears:

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?32996-LEGALWATCH-Games-Workshop-vs-Chapterhouse-Trial

I guess I might as well copy & paste the pertinent info from over there:

BoLS wrote:The trial is underway in Chicago in open court.

Trial Location and Schedule

U. S. District Court
219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: 312-435-5684

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly - Courtroom 2103

The Court sets aside the following dates for trial in this case:
June 3, 2013 (a.m. session - jury selection; p.m. session - trial),
June 4-7, 2013, June 10-11, 2013, and, if needed for closing arguments, the morning of June 12, 2013.

The trial day typically will extend from 9:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 1:30 or 1:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., with morning and afternoon breaks. The Court notes that this is longer than its typical trial day. The Court reserves the right to extend any given trial day to 5:30 if warranted in order to complete the trial within the dates set aside.

Trial Summary

Jury selection is completed, and the trial is underway. Both sides have completed Opening Statements, and the first witness is on the stand:

Alan Merrett - Head of Games Workshop IP

Mr. Merrett's testimony was hours in length, initially focused on explaining Games Workshop's business to the jury. Some highlights from his testimony:

-A Realm of Battle board was pulled out to show the jury to help explain what wargaming is.

-Games Workshop was described as being producers of "Toy Soldiers" and their game systems as being "infinitely customizable".

-Mr. Merrett described Games Day to the jury as a Games Workshop event that allowed customers to perform their "favorite hobby activity; buying things from Games Workshop".

-It was explained that Games workshop uses no traditional advertising outside of word of mouth and social media based online communications. Customers could simply google for their products and find thriving communities of eager fans on websites such as "Dakka Dakka and Bell of Lost Souls".

-Warhammer 40,000 was described to the jury as "Warhammer Fantasy in space", along with describing the Eldar as "Space Elfs", along with other "space" factions such as "Space Orcs".

-The Dark Eldar were described as "spikey, evil, and every other evil cliche".

-The Tau were described as "modern sci-fi; more traditional sci-fi" in appearance, as opposed to the archaic aesthetic of the other ranges.

Testimony is ongoing.

BoLS wrote:
-Games Workshop was described as being producers of "Toy Soldiers" and their game systems as being "infinitely customizable".

isn't that a contradiction from earlier in the case? that they didn't produce a game, but rather that the game was just a supplement to their miniatures manufacturing business? [spikes hair, dons terrible blue suit, "OBJECTION!"]

-Mr. Merrett described Games Day to the jury as a Games Workshop event that allowed customers to perform their "favorite hobby activity; buying things from Games Workshop".

oh that one's goign to win a lot of points

-Warhammer 40,000 was described to the jury as "Warhammer Fantasy in space", along with describing the Eldar as "Space Elfs", along with other "space" factions such as "Space Orcs".

okay.. so... did this really happen? did they describe X as a y with an extra protrusion from the middle?

oh gods above, why can't we have a live-stream or some transcripts? This is what, day 2? and we've already struck PR gold?

So, let me get this straight, GW´s head of IP, which one must assume was heavily coached prior to his testimony, was scripted to define how uniquely his IP is, using 2 essentially universal words used in every sci fy and fantasy genre out there "space elves"?.

Reality does top fiction.

Oh how I could wish that the Jury ask the court to visit DakkaDakka to verify the truth of Alan Merretts words.

What an eyeopener that would be, "eager fans" indeed.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Oh how I could wish that the Jury ask the court to visit DakkaDakka to verify the truth of Alan Merretts words.

What an eyeopener that would be, "eager fans" indeed.

Cheers

Andrew

I wonder how crapping their pants in court would effect the plaintiff's case.

If the transcripts cost, could Dakka set up a payment method, so we could all contribute to buy them and get them posted here?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
If the transcripts cost, could Dakka set up a payment method, so we could all contribute to buy them and get them posted here?

Cheers

Andrew

The transcripts are unlikely to be available at all until well after the trial ends, and probably the decision will be known. I expect a lot of the interest to dry up at that point, one way or another.

But no - DakkaDakka (the website) won't be coordinating payments for that purpose.

-It was explained that Games workshop uses no traditional advertising outside of word of mouth and social media based online communications. Customers could simply google for their products and find thriving communities of eager fans on websites such as "Dakka Dakka and Bell of Lost Souls".

I wonder if GW will suddenly realize that they need marketing. Also, they use social media? Really?

 Enigwolf wrote:
Also, they use social media? Really?

Do C&D letters count?

 Enigwolf wrote:

-It was explained that Games workshop uses no traditional advertising outside of word of mouth and social media based online communications. Customers could simply google for their products and find thriving communities of eager fans on websites such as "Dakka Dakka and Bell of Lost Souls".

I wonder if GW will suddenly realize that they need marketing. Also, they use social media? Really?

The individual store Facebook pages are "social media". They are set up by the main offices in the UK, who have posting privileges, and expected to be maintained by the staff at the shops.
GW has "regional" Twitter feeds(ex: GW North America having its own Twitter feed), and I'm fairly sure that GW counts their "White Dwarf Daily"--which commonly gets posted to the local shop Facebook pages--as a form of "social media".

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Im not against GW in all this or CHS. For the most part GW are the Backbone for most if not all tabletop miniatures, And company's like CHS make there living off of that back bone. As do the hundreds of YouTube channels, podcasts and Forums, dedicated to wargaming I am against the aggressive nature that GW uses in these cases though.

I am worried about the implications of what would happen if GW does loose the case of Copyright though. I'm finding it hard to word at the moment but I guess the easiest thing to say would be "Better the devil you know"

*Shrug*

I used to feel that Ral Partha was 'the backbone'.

They've been gone, what, twelve years?

I do not think that this is at all likely to bring down GW.

And, if GW did go down... something else would become 'the backbone'.

Also... at this point I consider Reaper Miniatures to be the backbone. But then... I think that they feel like the old Ral Partha....

When I am looking for a miniature Reaper is the first place that I look at, and often the last as well.

The Auld Grump

Alan Merrett - Head of Games Workshop IP:
Games Workshop was described as being producers of "Toy Soldiers" and their game systems as being "infinitely customizable".

To which CH may now respond:
We agree, GW game systems are infinitely customizable. And while you must first purchase he baseline GW product, GW provides very limited customization parts or kits.
We offer our customers a product that allows greater customization of the baseline product in the same way that automotive aftermarket producers create body kits, spoilers, wings, and mechanical upgrade parts for your baseline automobile. This includes exact match non-OEM repair/replacement parts for every model of American made car.
Would you members of the jury suggest that the Big 3 in Detroit can shutdown any of these companies that make aftermarket products simply because they are compatible with Detroit's specific baseline product?

(all you need is 1 gearhead or rice-boy on the jury and GW is toast)

Can GW run away from the trial if things go South?
Would a "Your Honor we decided to drop our complain and tell CHS how sorry we are that we made such a horrible mistake suing them." still work?

I don't think CHS would fall for it just in case GW comes knocking later on when pro bono lawyers are gone but would the judge allow it?

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
Can GW run away from the trial if things go South?
Would a "Your Honor we decided to drop our complain and tell CHS how sorry we are that we made such a horrible mistake suing them." still work?

I don't think CHS would fall for it just in case GW comes knocking later on when pro bono lawyers are gone but would the judge allow it?

M.

The trial is underway because settling out-of-court failed as an option.

If GW admits their mistake and throws the entire trial (won't happen), it's very likely the judge would rule in favor of Chapterhouse with prejudice. GW won't be able to file another complaint primarily because they essentially admit defeat in this matter.

Regardless, it won't happen.

GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Wasn't the "Toy Soldier" bit because labeling them as "Art" limited their ability to copyright or patent them in some way?

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

I wasn't even aware it counted as part of the hobby, I thought it was just something we had to do to begin the hobby. Like how cleaning flash off a model is not considered painting but it is something you begrudgingly do anyway because you want to get to the painting.

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.
.

Maybe I'm not understanding, as my main experience is specifically with copyrights, but design rights give them pretty much the same legal scope. They protect the outward appearance of the product. In addition, the artwork from a codex would specifically be protected by copyright, and derivative works, ie toys based on those artworks, would also be covered under copyright. I don't know about US law but GW would seemingly have a pretty good case under European law.

Not saying I agree with GW's overall behaviour, but in Europe I don't think the toy definition harms their case at all.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.
.

Maybe I'm not understanding, as my main experience is specifically with copyrights, but design rights give them pretty much the same legal scope. They protect the outward appearance of the product. In addition, the artwork from a codex would specifically be protected by copyright, and derivative works, ie toys based on those artworks, would also be covered under copyright. I don't know about US law but GW would seemingly have a pretty good case under European law.

Not saying I agree with GW's overall behaviour, but in Europe I don't think the toy definition harms their case at all.

IIRC, design rights have a much shorter period of protection, I think only 20 years or something? Whereas a copyright is for the life of the artist + 70 years. That's the big difference, so if GWs designs were ruled under Design rights.... well, they're original designs from the 80s-90s would now be unprotected.

Yup, that's very true. That's why you'd try and protect your product with a combination of copyrights, trademarks and design rights.

Perhaps those jurors are getting a real education in the distinctions between those three as we speak...

So they maintained the line of creating "unique sculpts, definitely not toys" all this time only to have the IP manager come and say "we sell toy soldiers", I think the judge must have raised an eyebrow.

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.
So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

And if they claim in UK, that they don't sell toy soldiers, maybe they could be sued in USA for false oath, right?

I would not say its so cut and dried. While what they sell in the UK may, in the UK be defined as one thing that same thing may be defined as somthing other in a different jurisdiction.

For example what is sold as an English muffin in the States is not sold or defined as such in, ironically enough, England.

GW's pitch to investors has for years been, "We make the best toy soldiers in the world".

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Yup, that's very true. That's why you'd try and protect your product with a combination of copyrights, trademarks and design rights.

Perhaps those jurors are getting a real education in the distinctions between those three as we speak...

The US has nothing directly analogous to the UK's design rights; a design patent is about as close as we get, and that's a very different animal.

It's extremely difficult to argue successfully that a sculpture is a derivative work of a drawing/painting.

If CHS lawyers can get any testimony he gave in England, it is technically admissible to refute his assertion, even if the laws read differently, it damages his testimony,



Though since they mentioned dakka,, is it possible to have CHS bring up what's actually being said on Dakka about this?

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

Most court systems don't care about other countries’ court systems. Other countries have different laws and definitions. Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK so why would the UK use a US ruling as UK law?

Different countries have different laws as to what is and isn't a 'toy' and what protections that entails. In the US, toys and toy IPs are very protected and the company that the designer worked for when the designer made the design usually owns the IP and any design elements. Case in point, BRATZ debut line was banned from production because the designer originally created it under Hasbro (or some other toy company) and Hasbro decided not to move the project forward. The designer quit and started production with someone else. Hasbro sued because, in the designer’s work contract, Hasbro owns the rights to anything created while the designer worked at Hasbro and used Hasbro’s resources to create a design.
It’s to combat corporate espionage. It’s a good thing.

Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

 Kwosge wrote:

Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

You would not pitch an idea to a manufacturer, a manufacturer would hire you to present a solution to a problem, just as architects are hired, just as engineers are hired, just as programmers are hired (if they dont set up shop them selves). It would screw up current status quo that is for certain, its a game changer, having said that, i am ok with it. Secrecy is the answer to corporate espionage, not law, has always been will always be.

Okay, to any of the lawyers on this thread. I'm in Chicago, work downtown, and am mere blocks from the courthouse on Dearborn.

If, on a whim, I wanted to wander over on my lunch break or whatever, would that be possible? Is there an audience chamber for these sorts of trials, like they show on TV shows? Do you need any sort of credentials to get in?

 Kwosge wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

Most court systems don't care about other countries’ court systems. Other countries have different laws and definitions. Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK so why would the UK use a US ruling as UK law?

Yes the laws and definitions are different, but the statement has still been made (presumably under oath) and recorded in the proceedings.

To stand in a court and say "We don't make toys", whilst being on record in another court saying "We make toys" is not going to help you in any way. You could go on to argue that the US definition of toy differs from the UK, but you run a pretty serious risk of being viewed as duplicitous.

 Kwosge wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

Most court systems don't care about other countries’ court systems. Other countries have different laws and definitions. Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK so why would the UK use a US ruling as UK law?

Different countries have different laws as to what is and isn't a 'toy' and what protections that entails. In the US, toys and toy IPs are very protected and the company that the designer worked for when the designer made the design usually owns the IP and any design elements. Case in point, BRATZ debut line was banned from production because the designer originally created it under Hasbro (or some other toy company) and Hasbro decided not to move the project forward. The designer quit and started production with someone else. Hasbro sued because, in the designer’s work contract, Hasbro owns the rights to anything created while the designer worked at Hasbro and used Hasbro’s resources to create a design.
It’s to combat corporate espionage. It’s a good thing.

Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

Until 1776, UK law was US law. There are precedents in contract older than that which are applicable in both countries.

Thanks to this shared foundation, it is possible for courts in many ex-UK administrations (USA, Canada, Australia, etc) to "have regard" for decisions in the other countries' courts.

That means a UK decision would not be binding, but if a US judge wanted to take it into consideration in his judgement, he would be able to do so if it had relevance to the case.

 Kwosge wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

Most court systems don't care about other countries’ court systems. Other countries have different laws and definitions. Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK so why would the UK use a US ruling as UK law?

Different countries have different laws as to what is and isn't a 'toy' and what protections that entails. In the US, toys and toy IPs are very protected and the company that the designer worked for when the designer made the design usually owns the IP and any design elements. Case in point, BRATZ debut line was banned from production because the designer originally created it under Hasbro (or some other toy company) and Hasbro decided not to move the project forward. The designer quit and started production with someone else. Hasbro sued because, in the designer’s work contract, Hasbro owns the rights to anything created while the designer worked at Hasbro and used Hasbro’s resources to create a design.
It’s to combat corporate espionage. It’s a good thing.

Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

The issue here isn't jurisdiction. Here is the breakdown:

GW claim not to be toys in the UK, so that they qualify for copyright and not just design right(which would be well expired for most of their products). AFAIK GW hasn't had to go on record in the UK to that end about not being toys.

Then here in the US, GW's head of IP says flat out in court "We make toy soldiers".

So if GW were to try and sue another company in the UK for copyright, the argument is that GW is on a legal record as saying they make toys. I'm fairly sure that the UK courts would accept that as an admission of making toys and not art.

Now if GW were to insist in a UK court that they don't make toys, but rather art, then they've just lied to a US federal court.

That's the rub here. GW can't claim to be a toy in one country and then art in another country who views said products virtually the same way. The UK way of thinking in regards to what is a toy isn't far from the US way of thinking.

 Redbeard wrote:
Okay, to any of the lawyers on this thread. I'm in Chicago, work downtown, and am mere blocks from the courthouse on Dearborn.

If, on a whim, I wanted to wander over on my lunch break or whatever, would that be possible? Is there an audience chamber for these sorts of trials, like they show on TV shows? Do you need any sort of credentials to get in?

Every court is different, I can't speak to US courts. But here are some general tips:

Courts are really just rooms in a building. You walk in the building, usually past security, there will typically be a registry of some sort (for filing paperwork), a wall with a bunch of calendars / dockets posted on it (to tell the lawyers where to go) and then a bunch of different courtrooms.

Courtrooms are normally open to the public. They'll make it clear to you if it isn't (sign on the door saying "No Public", or guard at the door etc).
There is normally security of some sort at the entrance to the courthouse - probably heightened for you folks down south. They'll probably check your bag if you have one.
You don't have to wear a suit or anything fancy.

Don't go on a lunch break - the court will be on lunch break as well, you won't see anything. However, if you have the afternoon off, going at lunch break will give you a chance to find the right courtroom and get seated before the trial starts again at the afternoon.

Make sure your phone is turned off.
Enter and exit as quietly as possible. Take the closest seat to the door so you don't disturb anyone. Try not to bang the door behind you. Try not to leave in the middle of someone being questioned. If you want to take notes, pen and paper is best.

Don't speak to witnesses who are hanging around outside - rules down south may vary, but its typical to exclude witnesses from a trial until they have testified. If they've been excluded, they aren't supposed to talk to folks about what is going on inside.

Court staff / security tend to be fairly helpful - ask for help if you get lost. Likewise, most lawyers tend to be pretty courteous and will give directions if asked nicely (YMMV).

The trial is listed as being in this courtroom: Courtroom 2103 (MFK)

Some courts have dress codes as well, at least around here. No hats, no tank tops or flip flops or shorts. You'd be surprised how annul some of these judges get.

 wowsmash wrote:
You'd be surprised how annul some of these judges get.

Especially in divorce proceedings.

Have fun in court, Redbeard! Take good notes, if allowed! Brush your hair!

As long as you treat the court and the parties with respect, you'll be fine. Pretend you are in church



And remember turn your cell phone off!

Customers could simply google for their products and find thriving communities of eager fans on websites such as "Dakka Dakka and Bell of Lost Souls".

What a cheek! How about all the the thriving communities over at TalkBloodBowl, and on BGG? Oh no wait! Someone closed them all down...

Mr. Merrett described Games Day to the jury as a Games Workshop event that...

Is slowly being phased out in favour of more profitable ventures like price gouging?

How much denial are these people in?

czakk wrote:
As long as you treat the court and the parties with respect, you'll be fine. Pretend you are in church



And remember turn your cell phone off!

Even more strict than church, I'd say. I'd wear a suit regardless, most everyone else in the courtroom is going to be, and you might feel awkward if you walk in wearing casual attire. Besides, it's showing respect for the court and the judge. I don't know about the US courts, but back home you have to pay respects in the form of a salutation when you enter and leave the courtroom, i.e. uniformed soldiers have to salute the flag/judge.

 Kwosge wrote:
Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission?

Because you're a creative sort of person and want to share?

I wouldn’t.

Nobody is forcing you to come up with ideas.

No one would.

I would.

I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

I'm glad I'm not in it as well. I tend to be far too flippant to really get along well in that world I'd imagine.

 Kwosge wrote:
Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would.

http://opensource.org/

There's thousands of projects where exactly this happens. So you're wrong - people do. And people make a living off of working with open source - Red Hat is a billion dollar open source company.

The northern district of illinois is part of the cameras in the court project (apparently). While they aren't filming this trial, you can see another hearing to get an idea of what goes on before you go in. (Sloan v Zurn - evidentiary hearing on patent claim construction I think). You get to see some expert evidence and some submissions to the court.

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/playvideos.htm

As you can see, it's a serious business but nothing magical.

I'd have taken vacation these 2 weeks if there was a live feed of the trial. Bollocks.

 Kwosge wrote:
Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

This paragraph is all over the place legally.

If you design something patentable, you can patent it. If you don't someone can copy it. That's why patents exist. Coke never patented it's formula, so if someone finds out what that formula is and makes their own cola which is identical, Coke has no recourse. A patent is literally the state providing protection to your idea for a period of time in exchange for you sharing what was technically done to the world.

A copyright is different than a patent. There's no copyright in an idea. Copyright tends to exist in writings, paintings, video, etc.. It's a protection of a particular expression of an idea. It doesn't only protect 100% copies, it protects against something substantially similar. Substantially similar is a term of law and is probably not worth going into too much detail, but the general idea is that if an expression of an idea is pretty different, it doesn't infringe.

And the other thing your paragraph gets into is corporate law and the duties owed in some cases. Probably a contract would exist to prevent the stealing too.