Ketara wrote: Some of those, like the Mechanicus cog, are pretty significant losses to have knocked out so early without question. That means any company can now put the Mechanicus cog on their models. It also means GW have finally lost supposed ownership of the Chaos Star.
It doesn't really mean that. All this means is that GW & CH were able to agree that CH's products do not infringe GW's claimed trademarks (for the list of trademarks appearing on the list); it doesn't mean that GW has somehow lost those claimed trademarks, or the ability to pursue trademark claims against other people for those marks in the future.
Really? I thought the court had ruled on these, I didn't realise it was an agreement between GW and CHS.
So just out of curiosity, if I had a product with a snake eating its own tail, and GW sued me tomorrow, I couldn't wheel out the Thousand Sons icon above and its removal from the case as a defence?
Ketara wrote: Some of those, like the Mechanicus cog, are pretty significant losses to have knocked out so early without question. That means any company can now put the Mechanicus cog on their models. It also means GW have finally lost supposed ownership of the Chaos Star.
It doesn't really mean that. All this means is that GW & CH were able to agree that CH's products do not infringe GW's claimed trademarks (for the list of trademarks appearing on the list); it doesn't mean that GW has somehow lost those claimed trademarks, or the ability to pursue trademark claims against other people for those marks in the future.
Really? I thought the court had ruled on these, I didn't realise it was an agreement between GW and CHS.
So just out of curiosity, if I had a product with a snake eating its own tail, and GW sued me tomorrow, I couldn't wheel out the Thousand Sons icon above and its removal from the case as a defence?
Not in the way you mean. These rulings are fact-pattern specific. The court didn't rule on the validity of GW's claims to a trademark on the Thousand Sons icon; it merely sanctioned the agreement between the parties that CH doesn't infringe on GW's claimed trademark.
You could offer this to another court for consideration during such a lawsuit, but nothing here says that GW can't continue to claim all of those marks as trademarks, and try to enforce them.
Ketara wrote: Some of those, like the Mechanicus cog, are pretty significant losses to have knocked out so early without question. That means any company can now put the Mechanicus cog on their models. It also means GW have finally lost supposed ownership of the Chaos Star.
It doesn't really mean that. All this means is that GW & CH were able to agree that CH's products do not infringe GW's claimed trademarks (for the list of trademarks appearing on the list); it doesn't mean that GW has somehow lost those claimed trademarks, or the ability to pursue trademark claims against other people for those marks in the future.
Really? I thought the court had ruled on these, I didn't realise it was an agreement between GW and CHS.
So just out of curiosity, if I had a product with a snake eating its own tail, and GW sued me tomorrow, I couldn't wheel out the Thousand Sons icon above and its removal from the case as a defence?
Not in the way you mean. These rulings are fact-pattern specific. The court didn't rule on the validity of GW's claims to a trademark on the Thousand Sons icon; it merely sanctioned the agreement between the parties that CH doesn't infringe on GW's claimed trademark.
You could offer this to another court for consideration during such a lawsuit, but nothing here says that GW can't continue to claim all of those marks as trademarks, and try to enforce them.
Exactly. All that happen was both sides looked at the filings and went, "Yeah, these didn't infringe on those copyrights/trademarks".
You would have to register it in particular industrial sectors, wouldn't you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, the thing with GW is they claimed for example a cogwheel as a trademark of... what? Now it looks like it will be overturned.
Kilkrazy wrote: You would have to register it in particular industrial sectors, wouldn't you?
I mean, the thing with GW is they claimed for example a cogwheel as a trademark of... what? Now it looks like it will be overturned.
Yes, trademarks are (generally) only enforceable within the particular market segment they are registered/used in.
And since that particular assertion has been removed from the case, GW doesn't have to go on the record as to what it's actually a trademark for, and the court/jury don't have the opportunity to rule it not a trademark.
So, they've lost the rights to, among other things, the Blood Raven icon? How is that even possible. I could see some of the more tenuous stuff but that seemed pretty cut and dried.
Ouze wrote: So, they've lost the rights to, among other things, the Blood Raven icon? How is that even possible. I could see some of the more tenuous stuff but that seemed pretty cut and dried.
I don't think they've lost rights to it, they've merely decided that CHS wasn't infringing on that particular icon.
Pacific wrote: Trying to claim the 8 pointed star as their own?!?! Hilarious. I wonder if Michael Moorcock is aware of what's going on?
I'm sure he would be against this, and at the very least summon Elric of Melibone to come and cast the GW legal team adrift in the sea of time...
I'm actually surprised that CHS didn't ask him to testify. GW *had* the license for the Elric series, and then when they lost it, made some minor alterations to the sculpts and declared the former Melnibonians to be High Elves.
There are a lot of shady goings on in the history of GW. To this day I find that letter the then head of GW wrote complaining about Copyright and how it's bad for the industry hilarious in hindsight.
I will say that I'm surprised that a lot of the factual history of GW and how they came to believe they owned this stuff is not coming up in the trial.
Oh, and the Blood Ravens thing is actually a bit shakey as far as who owns the Copyright. GW claims it, but it was not done as work for hire for them. That might be why it was dropped is that they couldn't actually prove they owned it.
Oh, and the Blood Ravens thing is actually a bit shakey as far as who owns the Copyright. GW claims it, but it was not done as work for hire for them. That might be why it was dropped is that they couldn't actually prove they owned it.
When Relic Entertainment released Dawn of War and Dawn of War 2, I thought I recalled seeing a trademark for the Blood Ravens logo. Did anyone else see that?
Iirc, the Blood Ravens chapter, logo and all, well preceded the DoW games. What I think happened was they couldn't prove they owned the original image for whatever reason, and so the "trademark" on the DoW's Blood Ravens was merely force of habit
Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.
I'm actually surprised that CHS didn't ask him to testify. GW *had* the license for the Elric series, and then when they lost it, made some minor alterations to the sculpts and declared the former Melnibonians to be High Elves.
There are a lot of shady goings on in the history of GW. To this day I find that letter the then head of GW wrote complaining about Copyright and how it's bad for the industry hilarious in hindsight.
I will say that I'm surprised that a lot of the factual history of GW and how they came to believe they owned this stuff is not coming up in the trial.
The early history of GW is not shady, and drawing inspiration from collegues is not hilarious. It is how creativity works. Every artist is inspired by his collegues and copys some things, makes new combinations and/or adds new stuff. Rarely if ever is something completely new. Every creative staff will acknowledge that, even at GW. It is just lawyers, who don't know how creative work functions, that try to cut off all inspiration for the profit of their clients. So don't fall into the trap of lawyers and think that inspiration is illegal and shady.
It is just lawyers, who don't know how creative work functions, that try to cut off all inspiration for the profit of their clients. So don't fall into the trap of lawyers and think that inspiration is illegal and shady.
Very true words. Unfortunately, lawyers have picked on IP (and patents) as a huge area of growth. They are infesting just about every creative company, and attempting to do the same to their own creatives.
I firmly believe in the idea of IP and copyright, but in battles to defend it, it's normally the lawyers and big companies who win.
My hope is that the chaos symbol, and double headed eagle come out of this as firmly in the public domain, and third party creators feel free to use those more. GW has no right to claim ownership of those...
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not surprising that common words and symbols such as "heavy weapon" or a cog wheel would fail to be found admissible of copyright.
The surprising thing is how long GW's claimed ownership has gone unchallenged.
A cog with a skull inside it would probably have been lost as well, if it was on the table. They're both incredibly generic elements.
It is just lawyers, who don't know how creative work functions, that try to cut off all inspiration for the profit of their clients. So don't fall into the trap of lawyers and think that inspiration is illegal and shady.
Very true words. Unfortunately, lawyers have picked on IP (and patents) as a huge area of growth. They are infesting just about every creative company, and attempting to do the same to their own creatives.
I firmly believe in the idea of IP and copyright, but in battles to defend it, it's normally the lawyers and big companies who win.
Have you guys noticed the large number of lawyers who are all working on this case for free?
Meade wrote: My hope is that the chaos symbol, and double headed eagle come out of this as firmly in the public domain, and third party creators feel free to use those more. GW has no right to claim ownership of those...
That isn't what's going to come out of this case though.
I think it has already been said that GW and CHS 'agree' that CHS is not infringing the things on that list that was in an earlier post.
It isn't an admission from GW or a decision by the courts on the validity of them either.
Ask Michael Moorcock about it some time. I believe he would tell you otherwise.
Kroothawk wrote: and drawing inspiration from collegues is not hilarious.
Ian Livingstone wrote:
Wargamers have an easy time in that obviously no copyright exists, say, on World War II and therefore any battle can be simulated therefrom and put into game format by any manufacturer without infringing any copyright laws. However, SF/F games and miniature figures lean heavily on SF/F films and literature for ideas and themes. They have to. Now should manufacturers pay for the rights to produce those games SF/F games and figures based on the well known books and films? Yes, of course they should, but whether or not they would be granted the rights is a different matter. Twentieth Century Fox are quite happy to allow a mass market Star Wars game or even Darth Vader bubble baths (fact) as they will generate high royalties. The manufacturer who is interested in applying for a licence to make products for the SFIF fan is likely to be turned down as the market is small.
Therefore those manufacturers have to try to get round the copyright laws at expense and annoyance to both themselves and their customers. Holders of copyright tolerate some of these goings-on, but What's happening in the SF/F world now the SF/F games and figure manufacturers are beginning to be squeezed. The game Siege of Minas Tirith has disappeared from the shelves and is soon to be followed by TSR's Battle of the Five Armies (which may reappear at a later date) and who knows how long FGU's War of the Ring will last. It is sad to learn also that Miniature Figurines are soon to withdraw their Mythical Earth range of figures.
It seems evident that nobody will gain from this strict enforcement of copyright laws, but the SF/F hobbyist will definitely lose. Let's hope that such problems can be resolved so that in future the wargames table will welcome the presence of Darth Vader with a light sabre, rather than a lawsuit, in his hands.
He's not talking about 'inspired by' he's talking about 'based on'. There's a big difference. (and the fact that his examples are Middle Earth TT wargames is hilarious considering GW's position on that now.)
PsychoticStorm wrote: Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.
I am not a lawyer but I got that distinct impression. A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them. Better to let CH continue making ultra shoulder pads than to let everyone make them.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.
I am not a lawyer but I got that distinct impression. A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them. Better to let CH continue making ultra shoulder pads than to let everyone make them.
Notice however that they got taken down with out prejudice. Meaning GW could come back say 5 years down the line and throw the exact expensive (legal wise) tantrum its throwing now. I see it not as a defeat but rather a tactical retreat on their part, while noble, this lawyers can not be expected to defend CHS pro bono for ever. Thou i am not a lawyer far from it, so it would be nice if some one could confirm.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is the reason why Chapter House haven't been crushed.
Well in all fairness, i imagine defeating a multi millon dollar company´s legal team on a copyright claim has to look good on any lawyer´s resume.
I don't think they are doing it for the props.
The law firm doing pro bono for the Defence is a noted west coast IP outfit. They don't need as a company need the exposure. It is the firm that takes on the case rather than the individual partners or juniors.
Pro Bono work is an important part of legal ethics in the USA, and naturally it's best if a lawyer works in the area he knows best.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.
I am not a lawyer but I got that distinct impression. A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them. Better to let CH continue making ultra shoulder pads than to let everyone make them.
Notice however that they got taken down with out prejudice. Meaning GW could come back say 5 years down the line and throw the exact expensive (legal wise) tantrum its throwing now. I see it not as a defeat but rather a tactical retreat on their part, while noble, this lawyers can not be expected to defend CHS pro bono for ever. Thou i am not a lawyer far from it, so it would be nice if some one could confirm.
The only thing they withdrew without prejudice is the hell hound/Hellhound thing. The other stuff has prejudice attached.
Unless I forgot how to read.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.
I am not a lawyer but I got that distinct impression. A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them. Better to let CH continue making ultra shoulder pads than to let everyone make them.
Notice however that they got taken down with out prejudice. Meaning GW could come back say 5 years down the line and throw the exact expensive (legal wise) tantrum its throwing now. I see it not as a defeat but rather a tactical retreat on their part, while noble, this lawyers can not be expected to defend CHS pro bono for ever. Thou i am not a lawyer far from it, so it would be nice if some one could confirm.
The only thing they withdrew without prejudice is the hell hound/Hellhound thing. The other stuff has prejudice attached.
Unless I forgot how to read.
That is exactly how I read it - I was starting to think I was the only one. As I understand it, it is only the Hell hound that GW can come back on - the rest is now settled for good.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.
I am not a lawyer but I got that distinct impression. A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them. Better to let CH continue making ultra shoulder pads than to let everyone make them.
Notice however that they got taken down with out prejudice. Meaning GW could come back say 5 years down the line and throw the exact expensive (legal wise) tantrum its throwing now. I see it not as a defeat but rather a tactical retreat on their part, while noble, this lawyers can not be expected to defend CHS pro bono for ever. Thou i am not a lawyer far from it, so it would be nice if some one could confirm.
The only thing they withdrew without prejudice is the hell hound/Hellhound thing. The other stuff has prejudice attached.
Unless I forgot how to read.
That is exactly how I read it - I was starting to think I was the only one. As I understand it, it is only the Hell hound that GW can come back on - the rest is now settled for good.
My bad then, i thought i read it was with out, could and apparently am wrong. If i am, then that is already a significant win.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.
I am not a lawyer but I got that distinct impression. A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them. Better to let CH continue making ultra shoulder pads than to let everyone make them.
Notice however that they got taken down with out prejudice. Meaning GW could come back say 5 years down the line and throw the exact expensive (legal wise) tantrum its throwing now. I see it not as a defeat but rather a tactical retreat on their part, while noble, this lawyers can not be expected to defend CHS pro bono for ever. Thou i am not a lawyer far from it, so it would be nice if some one could confirm.
The only thing they withdrew without prejudice is the hell hound/Hellhound thing. The other stuff has prejudice attached.
Unless I forgot how to read.
That is exactly how I read it - I was starting to think I was the only one. As I understand it, it is only the Hell hound that GW can come back on - the rest is now settled for good.
My bad then, i thought i read it was with out, could and apparently am wrong. If i am, then that is already a significant win.
I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."
There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?
I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."
There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?
It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.
I am not a lawyer but I got that distinct impression. A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them. Better to let CH continue making ultra shoulder pads than to let everyone make them.
Notice however that they got taken down with out prejudice. Meaning GW could come back say 5 years down the line and throw the exact expensive (legal wise) tantrum its throwing now. I see it not as a defeat but rather a tactical retreat on their part, while noble, this lawyers can not be expected to defend CHS pro bono for ever. Thou i am not a lawyer far from it, so it would be nice if some one could confirm.
The only thing they withdrew without prejudice is the hell hound/Hellhound thing. The other stuff has prejudice attached.
Unless I forgot how to read.
That is exactly how I read it - I was starting to think I was the only one. As I understand it, it is only the Hell hound that GW can come back on - the rest is now settled for good.
My bad then, i thought i read it was with out, could and apparently am wrong. If i am, then that is already a significant win.
I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."
There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?
The items listed (except Hellhound) are free for CH to make and sell and GW can NEVER do anything about it period.
I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."
There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?
It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.
Doesn't it rather mean that they can't sue CHS for those items? If someone else made almost identical versions, that wouldn't stop GW from suing them. They may ultimately lose once it goes to trial (especially if that's allowed as evidence) but the CHS case has shown us that the potential loss would be years and many, many thousands of dollars later... something most companies couldn't afford. I doubt others would be as lucky to find pro bono representation from an IP specializing law firm.
I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."
There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?
It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.
Alright, but from what I'm gathering that only covers the icons themselves, but not the shoulder pads, doors or anything they attach to in this case that's protected otherwise, meaning all they have at the moment is the legal right to make icon packs without being sued. Now if CHS wins this and then these other elements become available I'd say -that- is a large win. Right now it's the ability to make those symbols as basically icon packs that they've won.
I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."
There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?
It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.
Alright, but from what I'm gathering that only covers the icons themselves, but not the shoulder pads, doors or anything they attach to in this case that's protected otherwise, meaning all they have at the moment is the legal right to make icon packs without being sued. Now if CHS wins this and then these other elements become available I'd say -that- is a large win. Right now it's the ability to make those symbols as basically icon packs that they've won.
It's not a shoulderpad, it's half of a bowl trimmed with a raised edge with an inverted omega emblazed on it... What?!
I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."
There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?
It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.
Alright, but from what I'm gathering that only covers the icons themselves, but not the shoulder pads, doors or anything they attach to in this case that's protected otherwise, meaning all they have at the moment is the legal right to make icon packs without being sued. Now if CHS wins this and then these other elements become available I'd say -that- is a large win. Right now it's the ability to make those symbols as basically icon packs that they've won.
It's not a shoulderpad, it's half of a bowl trimmed with a raised edge with an inverted omega emblazed on it... What?!
Well unless GW loses the copyright on the shoulderpad design and how it relates to their miniatures (the size being the key characteristic) the shoulderpads would have to be smaller or -much- larger, or a different shape to get around that from what I see.
Sidstyler wrote: Wasn't one of the points brought up earlier that they never had the copyright for the shoulder pad design?
They had one for the picture, but not the model part but the Judge said that if the model part is based on the image it should have the same protection so GW used that to get the copyright on the model part too. So it's a protected item unless the Jury say it isn't.
I believe you're right Sid. They were denied a copyright for one of their shoulder pads while they managed to get a copyright for another. If I recall correctly it was the symbol on the shoulder pad which made the difference.
Well unless GW loses the copyright on the shoulderpad design and how it relates to their miniatures (the size being the key characteristic) the shoulderpads would have to be smaller or -much- larger, or a different shape to get around that from what I see.
You can't copyright a size. It is a functional element of engineering design.
Well unless GW loses the copyright on the shoulderpad design and how it relates to their miniatures (the size being the key characteristic) the shoulderpads would have to be smaller or -much- larger, or a different shape to get around that from what I see.
You can't copyright a size. It is a functional element of engineering design.
From what I read out of the summary judgements, the size is precisely why they could copyright it. Shoulder pads are not a new idea, but ones as tall as your shoulder to elbow in relation to the miniature was enough of a twist to the concept to be able to justify it.
GW cannot "copyright" a shoulder pad of 6mm high or whatever it is because I could make an identically sized "knuckle pad" for 1/3rd scale models, and sell them separately to my models.
(I would also argue about the shoulder to elbow aspect but that is a different argument.)
From what I read out of the summary judgements, the size is precisely why they could copyright it. Shoulder pads are not a new idea, but ones as tall as your shoulder to elbow in relation to the miniature was enough of a twist to the concept to be able to justify it.
The judge should really look at sets of gothic plate jousting armor. The only difference is that those were made of several pieces to allow flexibility rather than cast as a single plate. Many of them even have the same general shape.
So far and so good however I'll stand by my previous comment about GW winning some and losing some. Still too early to tell and there is still plenty enough time for a negotiated settlement.
From what I read out of the summary judgements, the size is precisely why they could copyright it. Shoulder pads are not a new idea, but ones as tall as your shoulder to elbow in relation to the miniature was enough of a twist to the concept to be able to justify it.
The judge should really look at sets of gothic plate jousting armor. The only difference is that those were made of several pieces to allow flexibility rather than cast as a single plate. Many of them even have the same general shape.
If I remember the statements made basically the size thing was what made it different enough from other things in the field (sci-fi wargames), so I'd imagine that would only help it.
From what I read out of the summary judgements, the size is precisely why they could copyright it. Shoulder pads are not a new idea, but ones as tall as your shoulder to elbow in relation to the miniature was enough of a twist to the concept to be able to justify it.
I would disagree on various grounds, however this argument may be moot anyway, since the US Copyright Office told GW many months ago they could not copyright the shoulder pad.
jonolikespie wrote: A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them.
Again, I think it is important not to fall for the trap of GW's lawyers.
Would McDonald's cease to exist, just because they lose a lawsuit claiming that they invented Hamburgers and have the exclusive right to produce these? No.
Would GW cease to exist just because they lose a lawsuit claiming they invented halberds, fur, skulls, grenade launchers, Moorcock's Chaos Star, Roman numbers, arrows, the Maltese Cross, cogwheels etc?
No, of course not. This is just a crazy omnipotence fantasy by a lawyer who knows nothing about this hobby and creative work in general. Let him lose this lawsuit and reputation quickly, so that the creative staff can do its job again.
Would McDonald's cease to exist, just because they lose a lawsuit claiming that they invented Hamburgers and have the exclusive right to produce these? No.
I might point out that McDonald's business though dos not hinge on monopolizing it's hamburger IP either. A comparable disaster for McD's would be, say, finding human meat in with the other meat in their hamburgers. Business ending? Maybe not, but tremendously damaging.
I might point out that McDonald's business though dos not hinge on monopolizing it's hamburger IP either. A comparable disaster for McD's would be, say, finding human meat in with the other meat in their hamburgers. Business ending? Maybe not, but tremendously damaging.
I'm fairly certain that if "Big Mac" turned out to be an actual person it would definitely be business ending.
Did the trial actually conclude on Friday and was the case handed over to the jury yet? If so how long will we have to usually wait on a verdict in a case this large?
Did the trial actually conclude on Friday and was the case handed over to the jury yet? If so how long will we have to usually wait on a verdict in a case this large?
I don't know for a fact, Mohoc, but I believe testimony/presenting of cases was due to take 2 weeks, so should be over this Friday. Bear in mind that each side had 19 hours 40 minutes to present...
I imagine that it will take a bit. Though it depends on how convincing the 'experts' were. I expect we'll be hearing back that CHS won, but to what degree is a good question.
I'm fairly certain that if "Big Mac" turned out to be an actual person it would definitely be business ending.
No, they'd blame a supplier and sue them. Then they'd re-brand or pull a slight of hand trick like being sold to another company that the board owns in a 1:1 shares exchange,
I might point out that McDonald's business though dos not hinge on monopolizing it's hamburger IP either. A comparable disaster for McD's would be, say, finding human meat in with the other meat in their hamburgers. Business ending? Maybe not, but tremendously damaging.
I'm fairly certain that if "Big Mac" turned out to be an actual person it would definitely be business ending.
What, "Soylent Mac" will be big seller, and McDs will be praised for fixing the worlds hunger problems.
I would disagree on various grounds, however this argument may be moot anyway, since the US Copyright Office told GW many months ago they could not copyright the shoulder pad.
They rules the model part wasn't copyrightable but they'd given a copyright to the artwork. The Judge ruled that the model part was made from the art design and thus was copyrightable (based on a case where a sculpture of a photograph resulted in an IP battle between the photographer and the artist. The photographer won), GW took it back to the Copyright office and was given that protection.
What also helped tip the balance is the fact that the copyright office failed to justify the rejection, thus giving GW some legal standing on the whole thing since it was based on the shoulderpad artwork and the artwork was not denied and there was no grounds to remove the artwork copyright on the basis that it was too generic or anything to copyright.
At least that's been my non-legal background influenced interpretation of that whole mess.
rigeld2 wrote: Iirc the copyright office didn't ever grant the copyright, just GWs lawyers used the judges order to try and get it back alley style.
See that's the thing, I read through the meeting done in April when they were establishing the trial date (again) and sorting things out and they mention a few times that the shoulder pads are protected and that it was all settled in "the first part".
rigeld2 wrote: Iirc the copyright office didn't ever grant the copyright, just GWs lawyers used the judges order to try and get it back alley style.
See that's the thing, I read through the meeting done in April when they were establishing the trial date (again) and sorting things out and they mention a few times that the shoulder pads are protected and that it was all settled in "the first part".
Um, no.
GW applied for copyright, the CO said no.
GW failed to mention that to the judge, who then ruled it COULD potentially be protected, thus forwarded to the trial.
GW took that statement back to the CO to try and get them to change their decision, which was denied again, and GW lost the right to appeal that decision because they waited too long, expecting to win copyright from the trial.
The shoulderpad by itself is still not a registered copyright, and the trial is what will determine if it can be at all.
Unless there was some massive update that I missed where this was resolved, which I'd imagine we would have noticed.
rigeld2 wrote: Iirc the copyright office didn't ever grant the copyright, just GWs lawyers used the judges order to try and get it back alley style.
See that's the thing, I read through the meeting done in April when they were establishing the trial date (again) and sorting things out and they mention a few times that the shoulder pads are protected and that it was all settled in "the first part".
Um, no.
GW applied for copyright, the CO said no.
GW failed to mention that to the judge, who then ruled it COULD potentially be protected, thus forwarded to the trial.
GW took that statement back to the CO to try and get them to change their decision, which was denied again, and GW lost the right to appeal that decision because they waited too long, expecting to win copyright from the trial.
The shoulderpad by itself is still not a registered copyright, and the trial is what will determine if it can be at all.
Unless there was some massive update that I missed where this was resolved, which I'd imagine we would have noticed.
I may have missed some things here and there because I was only lightly keeping tabs on this until the trial (because with the way it was going there was no way that there wasn't going to be a trial), but the judge didn't say it could be protected but that it was copyrightable:
THE COURT: I understand it's copyrightable, but
there is still -- I haven't ruled out the defense of fair use.
....
THE COURT: Well, I don't think that I would permit
him to testify that it is not copyrightable because that issue
has been ruled on. It's been ruled on.
The court has passed a judgement that says the shoulder pads are copyrightable back "in the first part" of this whole thing, so this was something that was worked out a long time ago at least.
Quote comes from here. It's in the section about Professor Grindley and how he can't talk about what is and isn't copyrightable in his testimony at the trial (page 17).
I was reading in one of the other documents (they really start to blur together after a while) that part of the verdict was based on the fact that the art was protected and that the model was a 3d representation of the art so it should be able to have the same status. This is related to another case I recall was mentioned in another of GW's IP things recently (regarding the lizard model with the gun) where a case occurred where a photographer successfully sued a sculptor for making a model of his photograph.
Maybe I missed something in the middle, but even if you pitch out the copyright on the shoulderpad itself, GW has the copyright protection on the art and can argue that angle instead. At least that's my understanding of this whole mess as a layman.
Does GW have art of JUST the shoulderpad? Or are you asserting that parts of a piece of art can be copyrighted on their own? Surely an image in it's entirety is all that can be protected, lest we start saying that feet are copyrighted because there is a foot in a painting I did this one time.
Can some judge from IL just tell the CO what to do? Do they have to register something they've denied already because 1 man says so?(Not argumentative, serious question there).
At any rate, the CHS basic pad was different enough from the GW one. I'd further point out that GW never did show the court what items of theirs there were claiming CHS was infringing on for copyright.
Aerethan wrote: Does GW have art of JUST the shoulderpad? Or are you asserting that parts of a piece of art can be copyrighted on their own? Surely an image in it's entirety is all that can be protected, lest we start saying that feet are copyrighted because there is a foot in a painting I did this one time.
Can some judge from IL just tell the CO what to do? Do they have to register something they've denied already because 1 man says so?(Not argumentative, serious question there).
At any rate, the CHS basic pad was different enough from the GW one. I'd further point out that GW never did show the court what items of theirs there were claiming CHS was infringing on for copyright.
GW had art of shoulder pads in their older books. Maybe the painting ones too. Most (if not all) have some kind of colour or symbol on them, but I don't know if that has to be specifically applied to the model as well (frankly IP law is pretty damned confusing), Here's an image showing just the shoulder pads separate from the Marines (biggest one I could find, but this was a poster during 3rd or 4th I think. I don't remember for sure because it's been a while):
I don't know exactly what power that ruling has. Maybe it can't be used to force it, but it might give GW leverage.
I know one document I read (was from their meeting in April when they pushed back the trial to June) required GW to sit back down and go over everything with CHS showing exactly what items they were talking about and what they looked like. IIRC it'd been done before, but CHS wanted to reconfirm them all and hadn't sat down with GW to do it again. I'd assume the court had seen them at some point as well, but I honestly can't be 100% unless I had been sitting there the entire time.
Aerethan wrote: They were required to sit down and agree on things, and they didn't. GW still did not give examples of works infringed.
I remember explicitly in April that GW had to sit down with them and show them specific things. They had a pretty short time limit on this too (24 hours I think?)
I may be having things blur together (I did read well over a hundred pages of this stuff in one sitting so that doesn't help) but I'm pretty sure I'm not mushing things together on this that they had to do this before the trial and it all had to be clear CHS would be shown everything. I admit I could be wrong on this, and if I am that's a great reason to not read over 150 pages of legal documents after midnight.
How do judge and jury in the court take it that GW refused to tell exactly what they are accusing Chapterhouse of and what the jury has to decide on? I mean, this situation must be ... special at least:
"Dear jury, if we told you what this trial is about, we would have to kill you! Please just find them guilty of ... things. Thank you!"
GW's chart of work CHS is alleged to have infringed in is quite amusing... In a number of instances their pictured works didn't exist at the time CHS is alleged to have infringed. In other instances GW pulled out random artwork that is relatively obscure.
aka_mythos wrote: GW's chart of work CHS is alleged to have infringed in is quite amusing... In a number of instances their pictured works didn't exist at the time CHS is alleged to have infringed. In other instances GW pulled out random artwork that is relatively obscure.
This is what still boggles my tiny non legal mind after all this time. CHS produce something that GW don't have and GW then want protection, because they didn't make it first.
I'm no great hater of GW, but boy, they make some odd decisions.
Kroothawk wrote: How do judge and jury in the court take it that GW refused to tell exactly what they are accusing Chapterhouse of and what the jury has to decide on? I mean, this situation must be ... special at least:
"Dear jury, if we told you what this trial is about, we would have to kill you! Please just find them guilty of ... things. Thank you!"
We have to find them guilty in order to know what they are guilty of.
Testomony was heard from:
Alan Merrett (GW head of IP)
Andy Jones (Head of Licensing/Legal)
Gil Steveson (GW Chief Council)
Nick Valluci (Owner of CHS)
Alan Merrett Testimony:
Merrett outlined a general summary of GW's point of view with several points:
- GW takes pride in the "quality and originality" of their products. They do not like when any other company makes miniatures that are based on their own product line, viewing many of these to be of inferior quality. Me mentioned the aftermarket for add-ons "makes us jolly-cross indeed"
Andy Jones Testimony:
Jones laid out many GW points points involving both licensing and financials under questioning:
-GW latest annual numbers reflect revenue of $54 million USD in North american sales. 50% of that was 40K, the other 50% all other GW products sales combined.
-GW was described as having licensing agreements with "big companies", and there is a perception that any such "big companies" would be upset by percieved theft of GW IP. He introduced no evidence of licensees becoming upset having actually occurred.
-GW is concerned that the poor quality of CHS products will rub off or bring down the percieved quality of the GW line in the eyes of licensees. He introduced no evidence of this having actually occurred.
-GW feels that they should get to decide when a product they invent in print and illustration gets to come to market in the form of a physical miniature. When a company such as CHS introduces a competing miniature that was previously unreleased into the market ahead of GW, they consider this this "poisoning the well". Other companies such Kromlech, Maxmini, Scibor, Hitech were listed by name as being examples this concept.
-GW considers the following naming schemes to be acceptable for the aftermarket, applying to all products that interact with their own 40K products:
PRODUCT NAME: "compatible with 28mm science fiction miniatures"
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: "compatable with Games Workshop [insert exact GW kit title]"
-Said that "anytime CHS made money, that was money GW should have made"
-GW Legal has an "IP Protection Group" which investigates allegations of IP infringement and decides whether/how to proceed. They are usually first alerted to alleged IP infringement by GW customers who they consider to be "our first line of defense as it were".
-GW has 200+ casefiles on organizations and individuals it is investigating for potential legal action against.
Nick Valluci Testmony
-Mr Valluci was examined by GW council vigorously.
-CHS disclosed that its total gross revenue before expenses for a roughly 4 year period in question was @$400,000
-Valluci took home $3000 a month from CHS, while his overseas partner took home $2000 per month.
Evidence Brought Before the Jury: see attached pic" --> OUCH, that one we already know from the Spots the Space Marine disupute.
I'm very suprised by the "200+ case files" thing, and naming other possible lawsuit targets thing. This should disabuse anyone of the notion that this is going to be an isolated case - it's just the tip of the iceburg.
I'm very suprised by the "200+ case files" thing, and naming other possible lawsuit targets thing. This should disabuse anyone of the notion that this is going to be an isolated case - it's just the tip of the iceburg.
This is probably current and past C&D's Tip of the iceberg? In my case I am not really impressed with what GW has done so far.
I'm very suprised by the "200+ case files" thing, and naming other possible lawsuit targets thing. This should disabuse anyone of the notion that this is going to be an isolated case - it's just the tip of the iceburg.
Perhaps this case is/could be the tipping point for GW depending wether they win or not.
I think mentioning how many potential lawsuits GW has "lined up" gives a negative image to the jury. It makes GW seem like they'll consider suing anyone they even suspect of making anything that may compete with products that GW often doesn't even make.
And suing over a product that someone released before you got around to releasing one is BS. But then I think GW learned their lesson on that, as I'm not aware of any new units in codices that don't have models released for them at the time of the book release.
At any rate, it looks like GW is doing as badly as I anticipated they would. They come off as elitist and litigious.
Sidstyler wrote: The sheer arrogance of this company is just overwhelming sometimes.
Yes, the arrogance seems be be shining brightly. Hope the jury can see it as well as we can...
-Said that "anytime CHS made money, that was money GW should have made"
- Complete and utter bull pucky!
-GW feels that they should get to decide when a product they invent in print and illustration gets to come to market in the form of a physical miniature.
GW may well feel that way, but this "feeling" has nothing to do with copyright law in the real world.
Was not expecting to see CHS sales averaging 100K a year. Better than I thought it might be.
Its my understanding one of the rather nice custom tables from the chicago battle bunker was packed up and sent in as evidence for the trial, its a shame because now the store only has realm of battle boards (on every table). They used to have some pretty awesome and varied tables but they can't sell those so everything was switched out for the pre-made terrain. :(
paulson games wrote: Its my understanding one of the rather nice custom tables from the chicago battle bunker was packed up and sent in as evidence for the trial, its a shame because now the store only has realm of battle boards (on every table). They used to have some pretty awesome and varied tables but they can't sell those so everything was switched out for the pre-made terrain. :(
How is sending a custom made table into the court going to help there case. I herd they showed a Realm of Battle board when they where trying to explain exactly what the business was. But a Custom table? "here is one of our custom tables, made by a professional, you cant actually by this table. But you could build it, if you have enough money to purchase a ton of our overly expensive terrain items"
I just cant see that helping them, unless they go to the argument of "we need to sell bits, so people can make custom items such as this" but being as they don't sell much in the way of bits anymore. All CHS has done is exploit a gap in the market. by selling after market bits. You don't see Mazda taking Vielside to court because people are buying Body panels from them.
It also seems that CHS has proven that they don't make anywhere near the sort of money that GW are saying this causes them to loos.
They are usually first alerted to alleged IP infringement by GW customers who they consider to be our first line of defense as it were
Not looking too great for GW in that summary so far - thanks for posting .
The above snippet is something I have thought may be the case - as I have been sceptical that GW has the resources neccesary to trawl the entire gaming community for IP infringements .
So according to the summary , GW usually uses reports from its loyal fanbase , upstanding citizens who dont like to see wrongdoing and will protect their HHobby .
No Johnny Tight -Lips , its Jimmy the Squealer all the way !
To be fair to the fan base and to GW, it is completely legit to report suspected cases of for example recasting.
IDK what sort of IP infringements get reported, but one reason why this case has gone on for two and a half years is because the alleged infringements in it are rather unclear. It's quite likely, therefore, that people from the internet report complete rubbish and GW open a file because that is what you have to do as a responsible corporation legal department. You have to log the reports to show they have been followed up, even if your investigation found there was nothing in it.
If GW then use the number of these case files as "proof" of the scale of the problem, that would be shenanigans.
Testomony was heard from:
Alan Merrett (GW head of IP)
- GW takes pride in the "quality and originality" of their products.
They do not like when any other company makes miniatures that are based on their own product line, viewing many of these to be of inferior quality.
Me mentioned the aftermarket for add-ons "makes us jolly-cross indeed"
Pardon?
They do not like that Privateer Press makes models for the Warmachine/Hordes line?
Had they meant that they didn't like that other companies makes models for GWs product line, surely it would have been worded better. Or is this not quote but simply a paraphrase?
I think this case has already made an impact on how GW does business. This may be stating the obvious but one need only look at the current release schedule and format to see the effects (I.e. all army books come with a complete line of miniatures listed therein).
Testomony was heard from:
Alan Merrett (GW head of IP)
- GW takes pride in the "quality and originality" of their products.
They do not like when any other company makes miniatures that are based on their own product line, viewing many of these to be of inferior quality.
Me mentioned the aftermarket for add-ons "makes us jolly-cross indeed"
Pardon?
They do not like that Privateer Press makes models for the Warmachine/Hordes line?
Had they meant that they didn't like that other companies makes models for GWs product line, surely it would have been worded better. Or is this not quote but simply a paraphrase?
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair to the fan base and to GW, it is completely legit to report suspected cases of for example recasting.
Of course , especially recasting .
Its interesting that GW customers are being used as a first-line reporting mechanism,
That makes sense because customers would have the highest awareness of the product range.
agnosto wrote:I think this case has already made an impact on how GW does business. This may be stating the obvious but one need only look at the current release schedule and format to see the effects (I.e. all army books come with a complete line of miniatures listed therein).[/agnosto]
I regard that as a positive thing.
The underlying ethic of IP is to reward the creators and encourage the creation of new stuff for the benefit of society. Chapter House would not have sold as many Tervigon conversion kits if GW had made a Tervigon kit in the first place.
The underlying ethic of IP is to reward the creators and encourage the creation of new stuff for the benefit of society. Chapter House would not have sold as many Tervigon conversion kits if GW had made a Tervigon kit in the first place.
I agree wholeheartedly. One bit of angst I always had was with models not being available for units in the books; I'm a poor painter and an even poorer converter.
I attribute GWs recent alacrity in releases to external pressures; the growing popularity of games like warma/hordes and servicable, more inexpensive models such as through Mantic. Based upon the GW belief that any purchase from a 3rd company loses them money, I would assume that Mantic's very existence bugs quite a few people incorporate.
Edit:
I needed a cup of coffee, attribute not contribute. drr
agnosto wrote: I contribute GWs recent alacrity in releases to external pressures; the growing popularity of games like warma/hordes and servicable, more inexpensive models such as through Mantic. Based upon the GW belief that any purchase from a 3rd company loses them money, I would assume that Mantic's very existence bugs quite a few people incorporate.
I would like to think that GW finally got its head out of the fething sand and realized that you need to MAKE a high-demand model for people to BUY in order to generate PROFIT, unlike the lack-of-release disaster that Thunderwulves, Hydras, and Tervigons represented, but yeah you're probably right.
This recent talk showcases one of the, in my opinion, extremely negative side-effects of this trial (and its current and future effects) - that of codexes only containing units that GW makes models for.
This side-effect is two-fold; one of game-balance and one of hobby.
Game-balance-wise we might find ourselves in a situation where a codex is decidedly sub-par because the inclusion of various units is withheld because models are not available.
One might say that GW should just postpone the release of the codex then, or that GW should increase their production-capacity (of their stated main motivation; namely models) but in the end it is irrelevant - reasons and motivations aside we are still left with a sub-par codex in this scenario.
Hobby-wise we miss an opportunity to (buy lots of GW kits and) make our own excellent conversions.
While we can always make our own versions of various model (preferably with GW kits if GW have anything to say about it), necessity is the mother of invention. We have greater opportunity to flex our creative muscles and inspire each other when we are, in a way, forced to do it.
I must admit that I am completely and utterly deaf to the cries of those that complain about GW releasing units without accompanying models.
Once people complained that the codex were too bland, small and uninteresting without variety.....and now they whine that GW gave us just what we asked for.
Should you find yourself incapable or unwilling to make models to represent such units.....then learn or live without!
Anyway....I just think we shouldn't be completely blind to some of the unintended consequences this trial might have.
Steelmage99 wrote: This recent talk showcases one of the, in my opinion, extremely negative side-effects of this trial (and its current and future effects) - that of codexes only containing units that GW makes models for.
This side-effect is two-fold; one of game-balance and one of hobby.
Game-balance-wise we might find ourselves in a situation where a codex is decidedly sub-par because the inclusion of various units is withheld because models are not available.
One might say that GW should just postpone the release of the codex then, or that GW should increase their production-capacity (of their stated main motivation; namely models) but in the end it is irrelevant - reasons and motivations aside we are still left with a sub-par codex in this scenario.
Hobby-wise we miss an opportunity to (buy lots of GW kits and) make our own excellent conversions.
While we can always make our own versions of various model (preferably with GW kits if GW have anything to say about it), necessity is the mother of invention. We have greater opportunity to flex our creative muscles and inspire each other when we are, in a way, forced to do it.
I must admit that I am completely and utterly deaf to the cries of those that complain about GW releasing units without accompanying models.
Once people complained that the codex were too bland, small and uninteresting without variety.....and now they whine that GW gave us just what we asked for.
Should you find yourself incapable or unwilling to make models to represent such units.....then learn or live without!
Anyway....I just think we shouldn't be completely blind to some of the unintended consequences this trial might have.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair to the fan base and to GW, it is completely legit to report suspected cases of for example recasting.
Of course , especially recasting .
Its interesting that GW customers are being used as a first-line reporting mechanism,
A few years ago they did a single page article at the front of WD asking that people report recasters to them. They quite clearly wanted the support of their readers. I'm not sure what good it did though as the majority of recasts cone from countries that don't care about such things and eBay and others arent proactive about shutting them down.
What I find especially dubious is that sites like Scribt claim to be hosting documents and ask people pay fees to download them. But there's masses of photocopied books on there. They give lip service to telling people not to host copyright material. It's seems to me the majority of stuff people would want to download has been copied and they take a cut on every one. I'm ambivalent about out of print materials being hosted online, like the Rogue Trader books. They are in small supply, will never be reprinted and have large collectors values on some of them. I have no moral issue with people passing PDFs of these around. But I so take issue with companies letting people host them but asking for a fee to download them.
Still, for another topic perhaps. CHS aren't recasting so it's off topic, apologies!
Steelmage99 wrote: I must admit that I am completely and utterly deaf to the cries of those that complain about GW releasing units without accompanying models.
Once people complained that the codex were too bland, small and uninteresting without variety.....and now they whine that GW gave us just what we asked for.
I think there is a big difference between having a couple kits that can be blended together for some highly customizable models that will fit a broad template of unit discreptions...
For example, the Chaos Space Marines 10 man box and the Possessed Marines box could create any sort of Chaos unit you wanted. They could be Chaos, Possessed, God-specific, generic, any sort of Legion (aside from 1k Sons with their Egypt hats), and the customizability greatly increased just by tossing in the appropriate heavy weapons bits or Loyalist jump packs, or whatever with minimal greenstuff work.
Just my experience, but the Chaos Terminator Lord/Sorcerer, the 5 man plastic Chaos Terms, and the CSM and Possessed boxes were the height of modeling achievement. I could make very nearly whatever I wanted with those kits and Greenstuff. I bought so many of those kits just because they were solid well-rounded kits.
...and releasing an incredibly gameplay influential/powerful/in-demand niche model with no rules, like the Tcav or Tyrannofex. When Tcav rules were released, they were obviously one of the most powerful units in the book/meta and also one of the most in-demand. Your only option was to buy a monopose pewter character model for $55 or buy 3rd party/convert. The lack of an acceptable base model forced many people into other venues. GW could have created a 3-man Tcav box and made boatloads of cash. Instead they made vanilla SW Terminators.
My sticking point is that it's not this big either/or fallacy GW tries to portray it as. They could, in all honesty, have development people who play the game and are accustomed to the nuances of the armies look at a model/unit and go 'hey production folks, this is what people are going to want, we should make kits for this because that's what gamers will focus on' while STILL throwing in a couple venomthrope-like entries that players can build/convert.
Let's face it, Chapterhouse didn't find its niche producing 'Nurgle' Terminators or 'Khorne' Marines. They're there because GW never produced a timely release for high-demand models.
Steelmage99 wrote: This recent talk showcases one of the, in my opinion, extremely negative side-effects of this trial (and its current and future effects) - that of codexes only containing units that GW makes models for.
This side-effect is two-fold; one of game-balance and one of hobby.
Game-balance-wise we might find ourselves in a situation where a codex is decidedly sub-par because the inclusion of various units is withheld because models are not available.
One might say that GW should just postpone the release of the codex then, or that GW should increase their production-capacity (of their stated main motivation; namely models) but in the end it is irrelevant - reasons and motivations aside we are still left with a sub-par codex in this scenario.
Except for the part where GW designers and writers have confirmed that units only get rules written for them once a model has been designed to some degree. Iirc that was a quote from a Q&A done at some GW event last year or the year before. They straight out said "designers come up with a new model that they like, and then we write rules for it into the new book".
So arguably GW already had the Tervigon figured out and ready to go, but decided not to release it with the book, likely chalking it up to trying to spread out sales across time instead of getting spikes like they do, a tactic which bit them right in the ass.
...and releasing an incredibly gameplay influential/powerful/in-demand niche model with no rules, like the Tcav or Tyrannofex. When Tcav rules were released, they were obviously one of the most powerful units in the book/meta and also one of the most in-demand. Your only option was to buy a monopose pewter character model for $55 or buy 3rd party/convert. The lack of an acceptable base model forced many people into other venues. GW could have created a 3-man Tcav box and made boatloads of cash. Instead they made vanilla SW Terminators.
I do not disagree with you that GW are exceedingly bad at judging which models they REALLY need to release, especially with really no-brainer units (as mentioned Thunderwolf Cav. and Tervigons springs to mind). I do not vilify any person that buy from 3rd-party companies.
I am worried about the potential future were the Unit X (with the potential impact on the game that Thunderwolf Cavalry and Tervigons had) is designed, playtested, found good and necessary, and then deliberately removed from the codex because GW is afraid that 3rd-party companies will make a model before GW does.
I am worried about the potential future where the Games Designer says; "Cool! I am going to write codex Z. I have a ton of ideas!", and then some of those units are removed from the codex - not for reasons of size of the codex and not for reasons of "killing your darlings" - but because GW can't produce the models fast enough, and GW grasp of reality is overruled by their paranoia.
PS. Please distinguish between "unit"(the entry in the codex) and "model" (the plastic thing we play with).
As Aerethan said, models drive rules in GW land, not the other way around. If designer wants to put in a unit, there will already be a model that can fit that unit.
Except for the part where GW designers and writers have confirmed that units only get rules written for them once a model has been designed to some degree. Iirc that was a quote from a Q&A done at some GW event last year or the year before. They straight out said "designers come up with a new model that they like, and then we write rules for it into the new book".
Yes, it sounds like the future I am worried about is indeed already here.
You guys shouldn't really talk as if that was always the case. Had I the patience I could look through my old (but not that old) WDs where JJ expresses exactly the opposite - that they, in order to avoid the blandness of codexes like Codex Eldar and Codex Dark Angels (old ones obviously), would happily produce units without models, and that they expected people to convert those. But this was all pre-Chapterhouse vs. GW...
I agree that it's an ass backwards way of doing it.
By writing the rules first, it would allow far more time to playtest them into balance while the design on the model is being done. It takes far less time to print the book than it does to produce the models and molding.
Any gaps in the WFB/40k markets are there because GW allows them to be there. GW had a bits service, and dissolved it. The question I have is how long could GW have floated Bitz with the amount of money they spend hunting down 3rd party bitz makers? I'd wager this suit alone could have floated it for a few years, and it would have closed a large part of the 3rd party market.
Steelmage99 wrote: I am worried about the potential future were the Unit X (with the potential impact on the game that Thunderwolf Cavalry and Tervigons had) is designed, playtested, found good and necessary, and then deliberately removed from the codex because GW is afraid that 3rd-party companies will make a model before GW does.
I dont' mean to sound adversarial, but, just throwing this out there, if a company can have complete control around ideation, development, production, and release schedule, and somehow the broader marketplace still beats them to the punch with a product that market participants feel is as much a value for the price, then I can't see how that company justifiably exists.
It will be interesting to see what the jury makes of all of this. GW came up with ideas and illustrations. CH then made models and used GWs names. GW claims that the use of the names was in violation of the law, and that the sculpts are a copyright violation. Many of the CH models do not look like the GW illustrations. The Tervigon is an example. Further, most of the CH products are designed to be used with GW products, so this certainly undermines GWs claim that it cost them sales. I don't think that the jury will be out for long on this case. They certainly would not want to stick around court deliberating, after sitting in court hearing the case for two weeks.
Steelmage99 wrote: I am worried about the potential future were the Unit X (with the potential impact on the game that Thunderwolf Cavalry and Tervigons had) is designed, playtested, found good and necessary, and then deliberately removed from the codex because GW is afraid that 3rd-party companies will make a model before GW does.
I dont' mean to sound adversarial, but, just throwing this out there, if a company can have complete control around ideation, development, production, and release schedule, and somehow the broader marketplace still beats them to the punch with a product that market participants feel is as much a value for the price, then I can't see how that company justifiably exists.
Just me.
I do not disagree with you, yet that is exactly what GW seems to be doing.
All this mention of Tervigons and Thunderwolves, and still GW hasn't released a Mycetic Spore model for Tyranids. Plenty of third party "Alien Pod" models exist (I can recall at least five), but still no official model.
Chapterhouse took advantage of the lack of an Eldar Jetbike Farseer model, and it has sold. Still no model from GW. Chapterhouse took advantage of the lack of Tyranid Shrikes. Still no GW model. Nobody out there is making a Tyranid Prime model, and GW is sitting here twiddling their thumbs while Eldar and Tyranids will/did get a new codex before their viable HQ units are still missing models.
You're all speculating that rules-come-after-models nowadays and such, but there are still tons of models missing from things that are very viable game-wise. If gW honestly started on this model-before-rules paradigm, then it'd be more likely they'll fill up the gaps before another company jumps on it.
Point is, when Chapterhouse released the Tervigon and Eldar Jetseer, and Mycetic Spore, there was no announced intention from GW to produce those models in the first place. It's been years and still no Jetseer or Spore. GW isn't losing money on these kits; they cannot feel entitled to the money as they seem to be claiming.
People are beating GW to the production of models in spite of GW controlling every part of the unit's conception. They're creating the demand for something, but then there is no knowledge on whether GW has any intention of filling that demand. They're not entitled to the money people spend on the Chapterhouse Mycetic Spore.
---
As an unrelated aside, I'm interested that GW officially acknowledged the existence of Scibor and MaxMini and all them.
I wonder if CHS was picked because it was the one that skirted the "rules" the most and was a bit slap dash in how it labelled stuff. I wonder if this was meant to be a nice easy slam dunk so that GW could then go after Scibor, Zenith et al (not that it would have been easy). Legal threats with a won case behind them and a threat to drown them in legal fees would have been quite a good tactic.
I always wondered why it went straight to a legal filing rather than a C&D (if memory serves).
-GW considers the following naming schemes to be acceptable for the aftermarket, applying to all products that interact with their own 40K products:
PRODUCT NAME: "compatible with 28mm science fiction miniatures"
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: "compatable with Games Workshop [insert exact GW kit title]"
Wait, so is GW supporting the aftermarket or what...?
-GW considers the following naming schemes to be acceptable for the aftermarket, applying to all products that interact with their own 40K products:
PRODUCT NAME: "compatible with 28mm science fiction miniatures"
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: "compatable with Games Workshop [insert exact GW kit title]"
Wait, so is GW supporting the aftermarket or what...?
They accept that an aftermarket exists, but the declared that they aren't happy about it, which is fine and dandy. I don't like that my company has competition, but we accept the fact that they exist. The difference is that we set out to make ourselves stand out as the best instead of trying to make the competition die out.
As for the naming structure, it is not up to GW to dictate how fair use of their trademarks works. They are in no position to demand their marks get treated any "better" than any other company out there.
"Shoulder Pad compatible with Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines" is a completely legal and acceptable fair use of said marks as a product name.
-Said that "anytime CHS made money, that was money GW should have made"
Well.. I suppose they have to say that? Can't imagine anyone actually believes it though
-GW has 200+ casefiles on organizations and individuals it is investigating for potential legal action against.
This, is why it is important for everyone that CHS win, or at least GW don't get all of their own way. You have to imagine that this is only the beginning, and that anything that holds even the slightest resemblance to what GW produces could potentially fall under the axe. The likes of Scibor and Gamezone Dwarves? Mantic? Why not.
-CHS disclosed that its total gross revenue before expenses for a roughly 4 year period in question was @$400,000
-Valluci took home $3000 a month from CHS, while his overseas partner took home $2000 per month.
.
This should possibly go in CHS favour? Peanuts in the scheme of things.
fullheadofhair wrote: I always wondered why it went straight to a legal filing rather than a C&D (if memory serves).
.
Actually, If memory serves..(and I am not saying it does)...
The CHS guy in his rebuttal/rant right after the suit was filed, (accidentally?) said that he had recieved C&D's but he ignored them because he didnt believe that US copyright law supported GW's (UK law) view of things. He didnt say how many C&Ds he had ignored but he did indicate plural....
Now where all this "Without a C&D" business came from I dont know but the guy himself said he got them...
...and releasing an incredibly gameplay influential/powerful/in-demand niche model with no rules, like the Tcav or Tyrannofex. When Tcav rules were released, they were obviously one of the most powerful units in the book/meta and also one of the most in-demand. Your only option was to buy a monopose pewter character model for $55 or buy 3rd party/convert. The lack of an acceptable base model forced many people into other venues. GW could have created a 3-man Tcav box and made boatloads of cash. Instead they made vanilla SW Terminators.
I do not disagree with you that GW are exceedingly bad at judging which models they REALLY need to release, especially with really no-brainer units (as mentioned Thunderwolf Cav. and Tervigons springs to mind). I do not vilify any person that buy from 3rd-party companies.
I am worried about the potential future were the Unit X (with the potential impact on the game that Thunderwolf Cavalry and Tervigons had) is designed, playtested, found good and necessary, and then deliberately removed from the codex because GW is afraid that 3rd-party companies will make a model before GW does.
I am worried about the potential future where the Games Designer says; "Cool! I am going to write codex Z. I have a ton of ideas!", and then some of those units are removed from the codex - not for reasons of size of the codex and not for reasons of "killing your darlings" - but because GW can't produce the models fast enough, and GW grasp of reality is overruled by their paranoia.
PS. Please distinguish between "unit"(the entry in the codex) and "model" (the plastic thing we play with).
I understand your feelings.
However GW with its annual turnover of £130 million should not have such a problem if they planned properly.
If they can't plan properly, or hire someone to do it for them, players and 3rd party companies should not be the ones to suffer.
I've been following this and I've never read anything from CHS anywhere that indicated they ever received a C&D. Maybe I missed something so a source showing any CHS representative made such a statement would be appreciated. <- I'm not being snarky I am concerned I missed something.
It was one rant, right after the suit got filed about how GW was overstepping because UK law doesnt apply in the US (and on and on et al...) I dont even remember what forum it was on, (Here or BoK I think) and he clammed up right after as he very shortly got a lawyer and stopped making comments. You wont find anything recent as counsel would have stopped that as it is an admission of some sort and lawyers dont want any actual facts out there so it is easier to muddy the water.
CHS did receive a C&D that just wasn't actionable for a variety of reasons... First was that it was sent by someone that wasn't recognized as an authorized authority... Second the C&D wasnt well written simply telling CHS shutdown because of a believed infringement without specifying what GW believed infringed.
GW's initial communication simply informed CHS to cease to exist, for generally using trademarks they claim; no more no less.
As far as the sender was concerned they were simply a legal secretary; that is someone who couldn't actually commit to threats of legal action... As it is, you would generally have someone who can make those threats sign off on the letter even if the same secretary prepared it. While this warranted additional communication it didn't neccisarily warrant an immediate end to a business.
I did find it amusing reading the transcripts where both sides are trying to bar certain things from being heard by the jury because the facts might be damaging to their cases.
Steelmage99 wrote: Game-balance-wise we might find ourselves in a situation where a codex is decidedly sub-par because the inclusion of various units is withheld because models are not available.
One might say that GW should just postpone the release of the codex then, or that GW should increase their production-capacity (of their stated main motivation; namely models) but in the end it is irrelevant - reasons and motivations aside we are still left with a sub-par codex in this scenario.
There is absolutely no reason that the lack of a new model has to mean an underpowered codex. The effectivness of a unit is not tied solely to how new the model is.
Hobby-wise we miss an opportunity to (buy lots of GW kits and) make our own excellent conversions.
While we can always make our own versions of various model (preferably with GW kits if GW have anything to say about it), necessity is the mother of invention. We have greater opportunity to flex our creative muscles and inspire each other when we are, in a way, forced to do it.
There is nothing stopping hobbyists from making conversions just because there is an official model out. Hell, in many cases, it's the existence of an official model that people don't much like that drives the converting.
What the move to only including units for which there are models does do is result in a situation where those who are interested in the modeling side of the hobby still have all of the freedom they had before, while those who aren't have access to a complete codex.
Everybody wins.
The fact that it took this court case to convince GW (a company that prides itself on being all about the miniatures, rather than the rules) to actually release a full range of miniatures to go with their rules is ludicrous beyond words.
aka_mythos wrote: CHS did receive a C&D that just wasn't actionable for a variety of reasons... First was that it was sent by someone that wasn't recognized as an authorized authority... Second the C&D wasnt well written simply telling CHS shutdown because of a believed infringement without specifying what GW believed infringed.
GW's initial communication simply informed CHS to cease to exist, for generally using trademarks they claim; no more no less.
As far as the sender was concerned they were simply a legal secretary; that is someone who couldn't actually commit to threats of legal action... As it is, you would generally have someone who can make those threats sign off on the letter even if the same secretary prepared it. While this warranted additional communication it didn't neccisarily warrant an immediate end to a business.
And, lets be real here... CHS KNEW what they were infringing. If nothing else, us common people were telling them, "Dude! At least change the name to "Lizzard sect armored warriors" like Scribor does.... The continued use of (claimed*) copyrighted names was a poke in the eye of GW and forced them to bring suit.
*The court has sifted that list of copyrighted terms for actual copyrights and has come up with some answers... I do not mean to re-hash that bit....
I can see you are pretty new to the forum and have not followed the case which to be fair is over 30 months old and has produced about 500 pages of documentation so far.
Chapter House took legal advice before launching their business, and believed they were not infringing.
And, lets be real here... CHS KNEW what they were infringing. If nothing else, us common people were telling them, "Dude! At least change the name to "Lizzard sect armored warriors" like Scribor does.... The continued use of (claimed*) copyrighted names was a poke in the eye of GW and forced them to bring suit.
*The court has sifted that list of copyrighted terms for actual copyrights and has come up with some answers... I do not mean to re-hash that bit....
What is your legal background, that you are able to know it was an infringement? CLAIMED infringement does not equal infringement.
Why should they change the name of something, if it is legally named, to something different, just to keep the big bad wolf from blowing? Let him see that your house is made of bricks, I say!
And, lets be real here... CHS KNEW what they were infringing. If nothing else, us common people were telling them, "Dude! At least change the name to "Lizzard sect armored warriors" like Scribor does.... The continued use of (claimed*) copyrighted names was a poke in the eye of GW and forced them to bring suit.
*The court has sifted that list of copyrighted terms for actual copyrights and has come up with some answers... I do not mean to re-hash that bit....
That is an interpretation... The law allows for the fair use of trademarks for describing the application of a product. Infringement is that line that when crossed ceases to be CHS selling a CHS product and becomes CHS selling something as a GW product or something intended to impose such confusion. Initially GW asserted everything was infringing and since abandoned that assertion over about 1/3 of products... This only to say GWs position by their own admission was overreaching. CHS is following the general practices of a variety of industries. If CHS is wrong in its understanding of the law it will only go on to show that other industries have catastrophic lapses.
Realize GW is arguing that they have ownership over a general set of aesthetics... If they win that decision it won't matter if you say "Lizzard sect armored warriors" or dinosaur man or anything else remotely GW sounding.
appeared to double post,
went to delete one.
now the only one showing is the edited one...
I give....
Also do not assume that because I have a low post count, I have not read everything or that I am a "newb" please... If a mod wanted to get my first post back I wouldnt mind but it's okay if you dont.
appeared to double post,
went to delete one.
now the only one showing is the edited one...
I give....
Also do not assume that because I have a low post count, I have not read everything or that I am a "newb" please... If a mod wanted to get my first post back I wouldnt mind but it's okay if you dont.
I apologise if you are a long time lurker who registered fairly recently.
So having gone through all the stuff I could find last night from the start of the month through the 9th, I think I know what each side is trying to argue based on the evidence they chose in the depositions. I'm going to attempt to summarize the arguments, but mind you I'm no legal expert, just someone who has been watching this on and off in interest:
GW's approach seems to be to outline a history of intentional choices to mimic, or otherwise borrow large collections of elements form Games Workshop art and models. Through deposition based testimony they seem to be focused on showing that CHS chose to try and copy GW's existing models (through emails, and the artist's interpretations of the instructions they were given as provided in the depositions) and art as an attempt to appeal to the existing hobby community, and that they did so with making as few changes as possible as to not alienate the customer base their were trying to tap into. From everything it looks like they're trying to establish means, intent and opportunity for this to be done.
CHS' defense is to try and paint GW's IP into a broad case of GW trying to claim protection on a broad set of things that they've taken from history (heraldry and Roman Legionnaire armour is both discussed multiple times) and from inspiration from other sources both real and fictional. I believe the aim is to get GW's IP either defined so narrowly that they can't protect it, or to weaken it in the eyes of the jury as being indefensible and public domain.
Granted right now we're talking about a trial that is front of a jury though, so it's really down to the lawyers and their ability to really pitch their arguments well to the jury that counts at this point. Either side could walk away with a bloody nose from this just because the jury likes the other side's argument better, so I think it's fair to expect anything ranging from CHS winning to GW winning to both sides being legally smacked about from this with no winner. I know we all have our opinions, but right now this is not longer a case about all the facts, but how the jury interprets the facts they're given.
I have come up with a small theory on the side regarding GWs rumoured release schedule and this case. GW isn't releasing the Space Marine codex until October, that's 3.5 months after the verdict. Just enough time to order and print all the packaging and books I bet. Anyone else willing to guess if GW loses the Space Marine trademark from this trial we'll be seeing Adeptus Astartes in October?
Kilkrazy wrote: Their sales of Space Marines will still be huge whether they are called Space Marines™, Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines™ or Adaptes Astartes™ anyway.
No doubt, but it was a thought they would want to use a protectable trademark over one that isn't to sell them by.
Kilkrazy wrote: Their sales of Space Marines will still be huge whether they are called Space Marines™, Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines™ or Adaptes Astartes™ anyway.
No doubt, but it was a thought they would want to use a protectable trademark over one that isn't to sell them by.
paulson games wrote: Its my understanding one of the rather nice custom tables from the chicago battle bunker was packed up and sent in as evidence for the trial, its a shame because now the store only has realm of battle boards (on every table). They used to have some pretty awesome and varied tables but they can't sell those so everything was switched out for the pre-made terrain. :(
How is sending a custom made table into the court going to help there case.
Likely it was requested to be sent in in order to help the jury visualize what the games are played on and it used a huge amount of GW parts in it's construction. They do in theory make and sell the appropriate parts that customers could build a simular table with. (If they have about $1,500 to blow) It may or may not have been shown, but it was packed up sent downtown at the request of the legal team. What they will do with it I have no clue. When we asked about it's sudden removal from the store we were only told that it was sent in for the court case, beyond that the manager was not privy to any deeper info. ::shrug:: I hope it comes back to the store as it was an awesome table.
appeared to double post,
went to delete one.
now the only one showing is the edited one...
I give....
Also do not assume that because I have a low post count, I have not read everything or that I am a "newb" please... If a mod wanted to get my first post back I wouldnt mind but it's okay if you dont.
It was not just the number of posts - your post in question seemed to be missing some salient and important points.
If you have been reading the thread then your post was less justifiable.
In particular - after market parts are legal. so in that regard GW has no legitimate complaint.
Halberds, jetbikes, horned skulls (or skulls, skulls, skulls, everywhere), Roman numerals, the letter X, Empire, etc., etc., etc. do not belong to GW! Many of these have already been shut down.
So.... there is a very real question as to whether Chapterhouse was infringing. And, on a fair number of items already... it has been determined that they were not, in fact, infringing.
Just because GW claims to own the letter X does not mean that they do.... Or halberds, fur, horned skulls, grenade launchers.....
The Auld Grump, and after Spots the Space Marine... there may be a lack of surprise....
*EDIT* In regards to the double post thing... it seems the thing to do is ignore it - it goes away....
CHS has going against it the fact that one of its designers and owners isn't a native english speaker which through his limited diction make some of his statements out of context sound really bad and GW's lawyers are exploiting that by taking his emails and statements out of context and trying to emphasize them as directives.
GW's lawyers are painting CHS designers' personal experience with other sci-fi and fantasy as hearsay.
GW, they are trying to spin the extensive knowledge of GW's products on the part of CHS employees as purely predatory in nature.
UPDATE: END OF WEEK 1 Summary
Andy Jones Testimony:
Jones laid out many GW points points involving both licensing and financials under questioning:
-GW considers the following naming schemes to be acceptable for the aftermarket, applying to all products that interact with their own 40K products:
PRODUCT NAME: "compatible with 28mm science fiction miniatures"
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: "compatable with Games Workshop [insert exact GW kit title]"
If this is correct doesn't it contradict a lot of what GW has been all pissy about? A large part of their arguement has been if it's shown on a GW model or even hinted at being used alongside a GW model then it's a "derivative work" as it's trying to fit into the GW univrse. Now in court Jones is saying the opposite, aftermarket is ok if it's in this format which acknowledges it's intended for 40k. Color me confused...
CHS' defense is to try and paint GW's IP into a broad case of GW trying to claim protection on a broad set of things that they've taken from history (heraldry and Roman Legionnaire armour is both discussed multiple times) and from inspiration from other sources both real and fictional. I believe the aim is to get GW's IP either defined so narrowly that they can't protect it, or to weaken it in the eyes of the jury as being indefensible and public domain.
[opinion] That does seem to be CHS's objective right from the start, even from before the papers were filed. In my (quite possibly biased) eyes CHS set out to infringe a very discrete and defined product. [/opinion]
And from reactions on most forums, the consensus of quite a few hobbyists is that bringing down GW will be a good thing. Why is that? There are other mini companies, the loss of this IP may see GW go the way of FASA. GW is not a monopoly any more than Ford is and does not need to be broken.
Longtime, occasional lurker. Even longer poster on Portent/Warseer/B&C
UPDATE: END OF WEEK 1 Summary
Andy Jones Testimony:
Jones laid out many GW points points involving both licensing and financials under questioning:
-GW considers the following naming schemes to be acceptable for the aftermarket, applying to all products that interact with their own 40K products:
PRODUCT NAME: "compatible with 28mm science fiction miniatures"
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: "compatable with Games Workshop [insert exact GW kit title]"
If this is correct doesn't it contradict a lot of what GW has been all pissy about? A large part of their arguement has been if it's shown on a GW model or even hinted at being used alongside a GW model then it's a "derivative work" as it's trying to fit into the GW univrse. Now in court Jones is saying the opposite, aftermarket is ok if it's in this format which acknowledges it's intended for 40k. Color me confused...
This a direct consequence of this case and how it's been going. GW is being forced to acknowledge the draconian nature of its interpretation of law. Their Lawyers are very obviously telling them what they have to allow. It's important for everyone to understand GW's example is just that an example... Companies providing compatible products don't need to phrase things exactly like that as long as the retain the spirit of those comments... I have no doubt the next fight for someone else will be when GW tries to assert a mandate requiring that exact phrasing.
appeared to double post,
went to delete one.
now the only one showing is the edited one...
I give....
Also do not assume that because I have a low post count, I have not read everything or that I am a "newb" please... If a mod wanted to get my first post back I wouldnt mind but it's okay if you dont.
It was not just the number of posts - your post in question seemed to be missing some salient and important points.
If you have been reading the thread then your post was less justifiable.
In particular - after market parts are legal. so in that regard GW has no legitimate complaint.
Halberds, jetbikes, horned skulls (or skulls, skulls, skulls, everywhere), Roman numerals, the letter X, Empire, etc., etc., etc. do not belong to GW! Many of these have already been shut down.
So.... there is a very real question as to whether Chapterhouse was infringing. And, on a fair number of items already... it has been determined that they were not, in fact, infringing.
Just because GW claims to own the letter X does not mean that they do.... Or halberds, fur, horned skulls, grenade launchers.....
The Auld Grump, and after Spots the Space Marine... there may be a lack of surprise....
*EDIT* In regards to the double post thing... it seems the thing to do is ignore it - it goes away....
It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck it is made to fit onto the duck. You are correct, none of those things are copyrightable. I am all for aftermarket parts, however.... If I take the whole of this chaplain mini:
http://darkfuturegaming.blogspot.com/2009/05/check-this-chaplain-out-and-of-course.html which parts are not derivative of GW's intelectual property? I put all the parts together and got a Ford? Should Ford let this go?
If 12 thinking Jurors look at this chaplain next to a GW chaplain and do not see a direct dirivative work then there is no hope for any IP anywhere.
CHS' defense is to try and paint GW's IP into a broad case of GW trying to claim protection on a broad set of things that they've taken from history (heraldry and Roman Legionnaire armour is both discussed multiple times) and from inspiration from other sources both real and fictional. I believe the aim is to get GW's IP either defined so narrowly that they can't protect it, or to weaken it in the eyes of the jury as being indefensible and public domain.
[opinion] That does seem to be CHS's objective right from the start, even from before the papers were filed. In my (quite possibly biased) eyes CHS set out to infringe a very discrete and defined product. [/opinion]
And from reactions on most forums, the consensus of quite a few hobbyists is that bringing down GW will be a good thing. Why is that? There are other mini companies, the loss of this IP may see GW go the way of FASA. GW is not a monopoly any more than Ford is and does not need to be broken.
Longtime, occasional lurker. Even longer poster on Portent/Warseer/B&C
Well, this is off topic for this particular thread, but it doesn't seem to be slowing anyone else down....
I would submit that very few people want GW 'broken' but many people are desperate to see the Ivory Tower at least get shaken up a bit, and perhaps force a change in culture from GWHQ that means they perhaps change their approach, at least a bit, so they become more like the company that so many Warhammer fans wish they would be, so we can give them more money and see the game many of us love grow and develop, rather than languish in the lazy, cash cow, feth you vets, limbo its apparently stuck in.
CHS' defense is to try and paint GW's IP into a broad case of GW trying to claim protection on a broad set of things that they've taken from history (heraldry and Roman Legionnaire armour is both discussed multiple times) and from inspiration from other sources both real and fictional. I believe the aim is to get GW's IP either defined so narrowly that they can't protect it, or to weaken it in the eyes of the jury as being indefensible and public domain.
[opinion] That does seem to be CHS's objective right from the start, even from before the papers were filed. In my (quite possibly biased) eyes CHS set out to infringe a very discrete and defined product. [/opinion]
And from reactions on most forums, the consensus of quite a few hobbyists is that bringing down GW will be a good thing. Why is that? There are other mini companies, the loss of this IP may see GW go the way of FASA. GW is not a monopoly any more than Ford is and does not need to be broken.
Longtime, occasional lurker. Even longer poster on Portent/Warseer/B&C
Largely because GW is trying to claim an entire market in a monopolistic fashion, and is willing to overstate what is their IP.
In short, the reason that folks are treating them like the bad guys in this is that in no small part they are the bad guys.
Claiming wolf tails as IP? Horned skulls, grenade launchers, or even the term 'Space Marine'? Not theirs, yet they are willing to sue over it, in the hope and belief that a smaller opponent will just melt away under the threat.
They are also trying to downplay that they 'borrowed' (stole, but in a friendly way...) most of the elements that they are trying to claim as iconic. Moorcock's eight pointed chaos sign, Judge Dredd's shoulders and bikes, the Roman's standards....
Me, I miss the old GW... the one that complained about over zealous IP protection, or griped about the prices of RPG products.
I miss the thin but value filled B&W White Dwarf that I met in the early eighties.
Part of the anger is from folks watching a company that they liked and respected turning into... well... the GW of today.
The Auld Grump, from back in the days when White Dwarf had articles for using Space Orks in a Paranoia game.... Or Daleks that turned out to be suits for cute fuzzy teddy bears....
which parts are not derivative of GW's intelectual property? I put all the parts together and got a Ford? Should Ford let this go?
Here's where you're messing up: derivative =\= infringement OR being the same thing. Infringement is using or abusing a trademark in such a way as to confuse the market that X is Y, intentionally or not.
"Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers."
Try reading the entire thread, you WILL learn about why your opinion is incorrect and uninformed and has thus been disputed.
Ammobunkerdean wrote: It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck it is made to fit onto the duck. You are correct, none of those things are copyrightable. I am all for aftermarket parts, however.... If I take the whole of this chaplain mini:
http://darkfuturegaming.blogspot.com/2009/05/check-this-chaplain-out-and-of-course.html which parts are not derivative of GW's intelectual property? I put all the parts together and got a Ford? Should Ford let this go?
If 12 thinking Jurors look at this chaplain next to a GW chaplain and do not see a direct dirivative work then there is no hope for any IP anywhere.
"Derivative work" has a very specific legal meaning, and encompasses quite a bit more than "it looks like something GW might have made."
It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck it is made to fit onto the duck. You are correct, none of those things are copyrightable. I am all for aftermarket parts, however.... If I take the whole of this chaplain mini:
http://darkfuturegaming.blogspot.com/2009/05/check-this-chaplain-out-and-of-course.html which parts are not derivative of GW's intelectual property? I put all the parts together and got a Ford? Should Ford let this go?
It is theoretically possible to build an older fashioned variety of cars purely from 3rd party companies. For example I was watching a show on the Speed channel where the show which is about vehicle restoration was emphasizing that this company sold such an extensive collection of brand new replica parts that it was possible to build a brand new 70's corvette. While I dunno about any licensing, they also emphasized that Chevy actually endorsed the use of this company. On the show they then built a new-old Corvette in that companies warehouse. This is only to say it happens and to some it perfectly ok.
Combine this with the lack of protection on Space Marine and *anyone* could make a Space Marine game, as long as they didn't use any GW logos.
It isn't as simple as that either. I'm pretty sure GW didn't start selling those shoulder pads until after CHS, but maybe I'm wrong.
Second there is a certain context to the product that this comparison ignores. Simply GW sells whole space marines and not so much those backpacks by themselves. GW would have to assert copyright over the "iconic" nature of those subcomponents as immediate identifiers of their models as they have over the shoulder pad to make your claim. In lue of that or GW changing the form they sell their models the law won't protect them from similar designs from other companies. Even then there would be arguements about how the CHS pieces transform the nature of the inspirational pieces.
The Terminator shoulderpads(which are exactly the same style as the normal infantry shoulderpads that they later did) and the Rhino/Land Raider doors are in FW catalogs I have dating back to 2006, but the normal Salamander infantry shoulderpads came with one of the Badab War books(I want to say it was book two off the top of my head; I did not order much from that timeframe so do not have catalogs to refer to).
Also, if I remember correctly the FW shoulder pads were released after the CHS ones... According to the TTGN entry on it, the posted date of the article was May 6th, 2011.
And the Chapterhouse shoulder pads were released July 20th, 2010, almost a full year before the Forgeworld pads.
frozenwastes wrote: I did find it amusing reading the transcripts where both sides are trying to bar certain things from being heard by the jury because the facts might be damaging to their cases.
Where can one access these transcripts? I need some procrastinating material
UPDATE: END OF WEEK 1 Summary
Andy Jones Testimony:
Jones laid out many GW points points involving both licensing and financials under questioning:
-GW considers the following naming schemes to be acceptable for the aftermarket, applying to all products that interact with their own 40K products:
PRODUCT NAME: "compatible with 28mm science fiction miniatures"
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: "compatable with Games Workshop [insert exact GW kit title]"
If this is correct doesn't it contradict a lot of what GW has been all pissy about? A large part of their arguement has been if it's shown on a GW model or even hinted at being used alongside a GW model then it's a "derivative work" as it's trying to fit into the GW univrse. Now in court Jones is saying the opposite, aftermarket is ok if it's in this format which acknowledges it's intended for 40k. Color me confused...
The more I hear how this case is going the more right I am on not investing in into a company that does not know what they are doing.
Though I will still stand on my previous statement that GW will win on certain things and will lose on certain things.
All of this should have never gone to the courts. Millions of dollars are lost because of the lost revenue of cross licensing to 3rd tier companies over the years.
Except for the part where GW designers and writers have confirmed that units only get rules written for them once a model has been designed to some degree. Iirc that was a quote from a Q&A done at some GW event last year or the year before. They straight out said "designers come up with a new model that they like, and then we write rules for it into the new book".
Yes, it sounds like the future I am worried about is indeed already here.
You guys shouldn't really talk as if that was always the case.
Had I the patience I could look through my old (but not that old) WDs where JJ expresses exactly the opposite - that they, in order to avoid the blandness of codexes like Codex Eldar and Codex Dark Angels (old ones obviously), would happily produce units without models, and that they expected people to convert those.
But this was all pre-Chapterhouse vs. GW...
Except that Dark Angels (old ones) was one of the sets where they made the model then made up rules - which led to DA units that just did not work.... (Why, yes, I am looking at the 3rd edition Dark Angels character on Land Speeder....)
Six of these marks (Chaplain, Blood Ravens
Icon, Celestial Lions Icon, Dark Angels Winged Sword Icon, and Chaos Space Marines Eight-
Pointed Star Icon) are now subject to the parties’ Proposed Partial Consent Judgment to be filed
with the Court, so will not be tried.
That is the exact quote from the filing. That doesn't say CHS can't use it, it says that it's being removed from the trial. It was not one of the marks in which CHS agreed on GW's priority.
Chapterhouse will not dispute Games Workshop’s priority of use as a trademark for: (1) Flesh Tearers, (2) Heresy Armour, (3) Horus Heresy, (4) Soul
Drinker, and (5) Storm Shield. Thus, the 19 marks as to which Games Workshop must establish a priority of use as a
trademark are:
(1) Assault Cannon, (2) Heavy Flamer, (3) Iconoclast, (4) Lascannon, (5) Powerclaw, (6)
Blood Ravens, (7) Exorcist, (8) Jetbike, (9) Jump Pack, (10) Lightning Claw, (11) Mycetic
Spore, (12) Tervigon, (13) Tyranid Bonesword, (14) Tyranid Lashwhip, (15) Ymgarl, (16)
Exorcist Skull Icon, (17) Howling Griffons Icon, (18) Iron Snakes Icon, and (19) Soul Drinkers
Icon.
I don't imagine "Exorcist" will pass as a trademark, nor will most of the icons.
Aerethan wrote: That is the exact quote from the filing. That doesn't say CHS can't use it, it says that it's being removed from the trial. It was not one of the marks in which CHS agreed on GW's priority.
So where did I get the impression that that claim, among several, had been dismissed with prejudice?
Six of these marks (Chaplain, Blood Ravens
Icon, Celestial Lions Icon, Dark Angels Winged Sword Icon, and Chaos Space Marines Eight-
Pointed Star Icon) are now subject to the parties’ Proposed Partial Consent Judgment to be filed
with the Court, so will not be tried.
That is the exact quote from the filing. That doesn't say CHS can't use it, it says that it's being removed from the trial. It was not one of the marks in which CHS agreed on GW's priority.
Chapterhouse will not dispute Games Workshop’s priority of use as a trademark for: (1) Flesh Tearers, (2) Heresy Armour, (3) Horus Heresy, (4) Soul
Drinker, and (5) Storm Shield. Thus, the 19 marks as to which Games Workshop must establish a priority of use as a
trademark are:
(1) Assault Cannon, (2) Heavy Flamer, (3) Iconoclast, (4) Lascannon, (5) Powerclaw, (6)
Blood Ravens, (7) Exorcist, (8) Jetbike, (9) Jump Pack, (10) Lightning Claw, (11) Mycetic
Spore, (12) Tervigon, (13) Tyranid Bonesword, (14) Tyranid Lashwhip, (15) Ymgarl, (16)
Exorcist Skull Icon, (17) Howling Griffons Icon, (18) Iron Snakes Icon, and (19) Soul Drinkers
Icon.
I don't imagine "Exorcist" will pass as a trademark, nor will most of the icons.
By giving GW priority on those aren't they agreeing that they belong to GW though? Forgive my lack of legal knowledge but I haven't studied it and am just trying to understand what's there.
I am willing to hazard a guess that while "Exorcist" isn't on its own "Space Marine Exorcists" and "Sisters of Battle Exorcist Tank" are protectable though.
motyak wrote: Does Jump Pack refer to just the words or does it include GW's model of a Jump Pack?
edit: I'll also ask again because I'm really keen on reading them; Where can one access these transcripts? I need some procrastinating material
It isn't listed as "Space Marine Exorcist". Those marks are being argued exactly as they appear on that transcript.
Also, CHS did not give priority for the chaos star. CHS gave ground on exactly 5 marks. That is all, and they are for the most part fairly unique names to GW. Not sure CHS ever made a "Heresy Armour", but whatever.
Furthermore, just because CHS agrees that GW owns those marks, does not mean that CHS abused them. Fair use is still a major part of this.
Aerethan wrote: It isn't listed as "Space Marine Exorcist". Those marks are being argued exactly as they appear on that transcript.
Oh I understand, but if GW wants to put their IP ducks in a row that'd be the best way to do it I think.
Aerethan wrote: Also, CHS did not give priority for the chaos star. CHS gave ground on exactly 5 marks. That is all, and they are for the most part fairly unique names to GW. Not sure CHS ever made a "Heresy Armour", but whatever.
I was only presenting what little I could. The Chaos Star did come up in April, and GW had mentioned that Moorcock didn't have an actual trademark on it (I've also seen a claim that Moorcock admitted that he never protected it). I don't know what is going on with it honestly.
Aerethan wrote: Furthermore, just because CHS agrees that GW owns those marks, does not mean that CHS abused them. Fair use is still a major part of this.
You are correct, and that's what the jury will be deciding this week. I'm not trying to imply anything either way as this case is all shades of gray that become increasingly shaded in the more you take sides.
The verdict won't be available until at least Friday, and possibly even up to a few weeks after that depending on what the judge decides are matters of law/fact for him to decide on.
The schedule has closing arguments at this Friday, so as early as that, or as late as Monday provided the schedule is kept and deliberation doesn't take long(which I can't imagine it will).
fullheadofhair wrote: I wonder if CHS was picked because it was the one that skirted the "rules" the most and was a bit slap dash in how it labelled stuff.
I believe the term you're looking for there is "honest", not "slap dash"...
Come to think of it, although I was saying that Chapter House took legal advice before they were attacked, actually they talked about their legal advice really early on.
As soon as they launched, people were saying GW would be on their backs, and they said they had taken legal advice and it was all right. This was about four years ago.
IANAL, but I believe seeking legal advice beforehand would provide CHS a solid defense against a finding of willfulness if they are found to infringe. Willful infringement vs 'accidental' can triple damages IIRC.
And yes, CHS was almost certainly picked because they were potential targets for trademark AND copyright claims, which possibly makes GW's case stronger. That, and they are one of the few add-on producers operating in the US, which makes litigation easier for GW for multiple reasons - the copyright laws seem to be much more in GW's favour in the US than many other countries, plus the benefits of being in the English language and possibly longer trade history in the US than in parts of Europe where Scibor, Kromlech and Puppetswar reside.
Kilkrazy wrote: Their sales of Space Marines will still be huge whether they are called Space Marines™, Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines™ or Adaptes Astartes™ anyway.
No doubt, but it was a thought they would want to use a protectable trademark over one that isn't to sell them by.
You are right of course.
The point I want to make is that GW are not going to vanish from the SF game business if they are not able to call their soldiers Space Marines™. They can easily call it Adeptes Astertes.
Therefore it was probably stupid to try to defend the term Space Marines.
judgedoug wrote: So over the past several years most of the posts have been good analysis by several lawyers and legal types on Dakka, and has been super informative.
Where'd they go?! :(
There is not much for them to post right now. We don't have daily transcripts for them to interpret for us and I would imagine that they would not do any legal analysis based on a summary from a third party website. The information that the jury is getting now is the information we have had for months (and sometimes years), the only difference being the witnesses and their statements.
If 12 thinking Jurors look at this chaplain next to a GW chaplain and do not see a direct dirivative work then there is no hope for any IP anywhere.
Lets hope so.
It is moronic to think because they lost the IP shenanigan they would be out of business, companies going through kickstarter dont get to produce full plastic kits and this will always be an advantage. Companies that are big enough to produce plastic kits, do not WANT to produce carbon copies of GWs kits, they want to DIFFERENTIATE themselves.
Jury, so facts and law are anecdotal, it comes down to who sell it better to the 12 Average Joes.
if you have an alternative system,.do share. Sounds like you're covering your back in case gw do well. 'well they we're still wrong, they just duped those dumbass jurors'
Jury, so facts and law are anecdotal, it comes down to who sell it better to the 12 Average Joes.
if you have an alternative system,.do share. Sounds like you're covering your back in case gw do well. 'well they we're still wrong, they just duped those dumbass jurors'
Now you are just being argumentative.
CHS has legal advice when they started, which means that they were acting in GOOD FAITH that what they were doing was legal. That fact does matter a lot, as it shows they were not intentionally trying to infringe on any IP.
As stated before, that fact matters in the event that CHS loses and GW seeks damages.
None of this has to do with UKPM's or politics. Quit white knighting, it's getting tired.
I'm no Mod guys but the Bickering and trying to score points off of each other is going to cause this thread to be locked. And it is very unnecessary. We can discuss the implications of either outcome, and the case itself, without being argumentative to each other.
Lint wrote: Wow this thread deteriorated fast.
Can we just get an update in the title when something new happens so I don't have to watch the dick contest?
Quite frankly, no matter who wins or loses, it's not like any of us are paying damages, so there's quite frankly no need to get so hot-tempered about everything. If GW wins, cool. It's not like the after-market is going to suddenly disappear, and for however much GW is going to prosecute every other independent studio out there, someone is still going to make after-market parts and circumvent GW's IP one way or another. If CHS wins, cool. Maybe GW gets on their game and starts producing the things their playerbase is calling for, and we still have an after-market that will likely expand.
Either way, we're not the ones paying damages or legal fees. So let's just sit back and enjoy the popcorn together as friends, mm'kay?
Years ago I had a discussion with Aaron Overton of then DemonBlade Games about GW threatening legal action against DemonBlade games over their line of Orx, which looked vaguely like GW40K Orks. He complied with the C&D because frankly the line of Orx sales did not justify the expense of a Legal Battle with the 800 pound Gorilla that was GW. It was simply cheaper and easier to resculpt and cast a new line of Orx, that were more humanoid. He alledged that afterwards someone at GW sent him paperwork about the matter, and in error they sent him a document that included the total billable hours and dollar amount that GW legal team had charged them. The total was 10 times the amount of the sales of his entire Orx line. He joked that he would have glady sold GW all the molds, models, and rights for the Orx line for a 1/10th of what they spent in legal fees if they had just asked him.
I share this story since I think it's relevant to the discussion here. Win or Lose, GW has most likely spent vastly more on this lawsuit than any potential damages they can attain from Chapterhouse. It would have been simpler and cheaper to just offer the guy a job.
adamsouza wrote: Years ago I had a discussion with Aaron Overton of then DemonBlade Games about GW threatening legal action against DemonBlade games over their line of Orx, which looked vaguely like GW40K Orks. He complied with the C&D because frankly the line of Orx sales did not justify the expense of a Legal Battle with the 800 pound Gorilla that was GW. It was simply cheaper and easier to resculpt and cast a new line of Orx, that were more humanoid. He alledged that afterwards someone at GW sent him paperwork about the matter, and in error they sent him a document that included the total billable hours and dollar amount that GW legal team had charged them. The total was 10 times the amount of the sales of his entire Orx line. He joked that he would have glady sold GW all the molds, models, and rights for the Orx line for a 1/10th of what they spent in legal fees if they had just asked him.
I share this story since I think it's relevant to the discussion here. Win or Lose, GW has most likely spent vastly more on this lawsuit than any potential damages they can attain from Chapterhouse. It would have been simpler and cheaper to just offer the guy a job.
Wonderful anecdote.
GW will likely spend CHS' 4 year revenue before this is over, if they haven't already, and barring any appeals they may take up. I agree that at this point they could have just bought out CHS 2 years ago and saved themselves the PR disaster.
GW will likely spend CHS' 4 year revenue before this is over, if they haven't already, and barring any appeals they may take up. I agree that at this point they could have just bought out CHS 2 years ago and saved themselves the PR disaster.
didn't czakk or weeble or someone do a rough breakdown and found that, at minimum, GW has spent at least a million bucks on billable hours, flights, depositions, fees, etc? Like bare minimum was $750,000 with everything costing less than the industry averages
GW will likely spend CHS' 4 year revenue before this is over, if they haven't already, and barring any appeals they may take up. I agree that at this point they could have just bought out CHS 2 years ago and saved themselves the PR disaster.
didn't czakk or weeble or someone do a rough breakdown and found that, at minimum, GW has spent at least a million bucks on billable hours, flights, depositions, fees, etc? Like bare minimum was $750,000 with everything costing less than the industry averages
Even better. I figured there was math done at one point, but I didn't recall it.
I guarantee GW could have bought out CHS for 500k and Nick would have sold(hard to say no to that kind of money when your take home is 3k/mo).
I could see Nick trying to turn down the sale to fight the good fight and try to stand up to GW but at the end of the day Money is money and if I was in his place would have sold if offered. Interesting trial to say the least. I'm sure this was covered in the 157 pages somewhere but what outcome is needed for CHS's legal council to be able to go after GW for money to cover there service?
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.
GW will likely spend CHS' 4 year revenue before this is over, if they haven't already, and barring any appeals they may take up. I agree that at this point they could have just bought out CHS 2 years ago and saved themselves the PR disaster.
didn't czakk or weeble or someone do a rough breakdown and found that, at minimum, GW has spent at least a million bucks on billable hours, flights, depositions, fees, etc? Like bare minimum was $750,000 with everything costing less than the industry averages
Might have been weeble. I think we did a guesstimate at how much it cost to depose Grindley though.
I can do some wild ass guessing if you like. On average a lawyer at Foley Lardner generates around 745k a year in gross revenues. There has been one partner and one senior lawyer working on this case for how many years? (http://www.americanlawyer.com/firmProfile.jsp?name=Foley+%26+Lardner)
In billable hours:
"The case has been ongoing since December 22nd, 2010. If we assume 28 months of litigation, and assume that the attorneys have collectively put about 1,000 hours into the case per year (this would equate to about 3 hours per day and is, I think, a reasonable estimate), that would get you a total of 2,333 billable hours. 2,333 hours at $300/hour would be about $700,000."
GW will likely spend CHS' 4 year revenue before this is over, if they haven't already, and barring any appeals they may take up. I agree that at this point they could have just bought out CHS 2 years ago and saved themselves the PR disaster.
To be fair, you're presuming CHS is for sale. If I was them, *I* wouldn't sell to GW.
Likely, all GW would do is shelf the stuff. They didn't work their butts off to get this stuff to market, only to see it shelved. Especially since, I'm sure, any such purchase agreement would be required by GW to have a "non-comp" clause of some kind. They're not going to want to give money to someone to go away, only to fund his next project.
In billable hours:
"The case has been ongoing since December 22nd, 2010. If we assume 28 months of litigation, and assume that the attorneys have collectively put about 1,000 hours into the case per year (this would equate to about 3 hours per day and is, I think, a reasonable estimate), that would get you a total of 2,333 billable hours. 2,333 hours at $300/hour would be about $700,000."
And that's just attorney billable hours. Add on travel costs, etc.
So I'm wondering what would be the eventual outcome of this if GW wins, would that mean that no one could make shoulder pads for Space Marines anymore, or vehicle add-on kits, or separate weapons?
What would the status be of CHS current range?
If CHS wins, if I've read things right, GW could still go after them later for essentially the same thing?
Could CHS go after other bits companies that also make similar shoulder pads and sue them?
I'm a layman so this case is somewhat confusing to me and I'm wondering just what exactly, if any, impact this will have on other parts manufacturers like Scibor, Anvil Industries, Forge Planet.
Will this prevent anyone else from starting their own range of add-on components?
Or is this only going to effect USA based businesses?
If GW wins, they can use this case as a precedent (under common law) and sue other after-market manufacturers based in the US. CHS would have to take down their current range. CHS cannot go after other bits companies because they don't own the trademarks and copyrights - GW does, that's why they can sue CHS.
However, GW will have to start afresh in other countries because taking precedence of other cases common law only applies to that country, unless another country's legal system decides to take into consideration the decisions in US courts.
Enigwolf wrote: If GW wins, they can use this case as a precedent (under common law) and sue other after-market manufacturers based in the US. CHS would have to take down their current range. CHS cannot go after other bits companies because they don't own the trademarks and copyrights - GW does, that's why they can sue CHS.
However, GW will have to start afresh in other countries because taking precedence of other cases common law only applies to that country, unless another country's legal system decides to take into consideration the decisions in US courts.
Would it be correct to assume that if CHS wins then GW could still go after other companies for essentially the same thing, or would the CHS case create a precedent that would protect other companies?
It wouldn't protect those companies per se, but it would make those cases easier to get pro bono lawyers on if they know GW has a history of talking out their ass.
Aerethan wrote: I guarantee GW could have bought out CHS for 500k and Nick would have sold(hard to say no to that kind of money when your take home is 3k/mo).
Although this would have, in hindsight, resulted in a much lower total cost outlay, there's very little here that would serve any long-term purpose for GW.
So they buy CH. They end up with a mailing list for people that are already their customers, molds for bits that they already either declined to produce or already produce a similar substitute for, and they risk creating a cottage industry of 'people who want to crank out knockoff stuff for the sole purpose of getting GW to buy them out later on' that long-term would be unsustainable, but short term risks creating even more brand dilution and product offering in their market.
The dirty laundry getting aired here is pretty dirty, like the offchance that GW can't lay claim to 'Space Marine', so in hindsight again this result may still be favorable to the huge rents that have been torn in the 'fortress wall' and filled in the 'fortress moat' of GW IP and hobbydom, but if you believed that your ducks were in a row initially, very little would have suggested that they pay to make it go away. That's my opinion, of course.
I will say, though, if dice were involved, this case would look like CH rollling straight 6s and GW tossing 1s and 2s, even with a couple rerolls.
Enigwolf wrote: If GW wins, they can use this case as a precedent (under common law) and sue other after-market manufacturers based in the US. CHS would have to take down their current range. CHS cannot go after other bits companies because they don't own the trademarks and copyrights - GW does, that's why they can sue CHS.
However, GW will have to start afresh in other countries because taking precedence of other cases common law only applies to that country, unless another country's legal system decides to take into consideration the decisions in US courts.
Would it be correct to assume that if CHS wins then GW could still go after other companies for essentially the same thing, or would the CHS case create a precedent that would protect other companies?
Aerethan wrote:It wouldn't protect those companies per se, but it would make those cases easier to get pro bono lawyers on if they know GW has a history of talking out their ass.
It comes down to the specifics of the case at hand. If another case surfaces where the situation is exactly the same, this case sets a precedent for a very strong defense and the onus goes onto GW to prove that it's a completely different case and that they aren't filing a lawsuit for harassment purposes. But it won't stop GW from going after other companies to try to kill them with legal costs, but as Aerethan said, pro-bono lawyers are more likely to jump on to help the small guy.
Could CHS go after other bits companies that also make similar shoulder pads and sue them?
Maybe. It depends on what judgement they are given, right? It would mean probably mean that no one can copywrite the shoulder pads in question. It's unlikely that CHS would be granted the writes/rights/rites (dunno correct term) to the design, right?
Aerethan wrote: Is it possible for Grindley to offer his deposition for free to one side and not the other?
That's generally how it works. Expert witnesses are contacted by one side and asked to present testimony that supports their argument. Some cases even involve competing expert witnesses (one for each side but from the same field) who refute each others' testimonies.
Kilkrazy wrote: His deposition is to the court and consists of his expert testimony on the topic.
It would be a violation of ethics to slant testimony towards a favoured side, whoever is paying (or not).
The fact that his testimony is "anti" GW merely reflects the facts indicating their case is wrong.
I could have worded that better. Lets just say that no attorney will contact an expert to appear before court if they feel that their views ran counter to their argument. If they do a thorough job of vetting the witness, there's no issue as they will be consistent in their answers. This is why it's usually favorable to contact experts who have prior court appearances under their belt.
More likely, however, is GW losing the majority of their claims.
In large part because they have made their claims much too broad for unregistered trademarks.
I would be surprised, but not very surprised, to see GW lose the entirety of this case.
And, on purchasing companies that are not for sale... sometimes folks do turn down what would appear to be an overwhelming offer in order to maintain their own control of their company.
Kilkrazy wrote: His deposition is to the court and consists of his expert testimony on the topic.
It would be a violation of ethics to slant testimony towards a favoured side, whoever is paying (or not).
The fact that his testimony is "anti" GW merely reflects the facts indicating their case is wrong.
I could have worded that better. Lets just say that no attorney will contact an expert to appear before court if they feel that their views ran counter to their argument. If they do a thorough job of vetting the witness, there's no issue as they will be consistent in their answers. This is why it's usually favorable to contact experts who have prior court appearances under their belt.
That was my understanding of the matter. CHS has Grindley as their expert witness because his views match the views of the defence in this case and his interpretations of things supports their arguments the strongest.
If this wasn't the case you wouldn't have situations were two opposing expert witnesses were tearing each other's testimonies apart despite being experts in the same thing. But because the expert witnesses are chosen by a particular side, their planned testimony will naturally coincide with that side's arguments.
At least that's my layman's understanding of it.
EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is part of the criteria an expert witness is chosen for is their argument helping "stack the deck" in one side's favour. Yes the opposing side will get to deposition them and/or question their testimony at trial but the fact is that the expert witness isn't hired by the court to be a witness but by one side or another, and thus is chosen because something they have to say helps that side's argument.
Kilkrazy wrote: His deposition is to the court and consists of his expert testimony on the topic.
It would be a violation of ethics to slant testimony towards a favoured side, whoever is paying (or not).
The fact that his testimony is "anti" GW merely reflects the facts indicating their case is wrong.
I could have worded that better. Lets just say that no attorney will contact an expert to appear before court if they feel that their views ran counter to their argument. If they do a thorough job of vetting the witness, there's no issue as they will be consistent in their answers. This is why it's usually favorable to contact experts who have prior court appearances under their belt.
Completely fair comment.
It is interesting that Chapter House were fairly easily able to find an academic who was prepared to say that big shoulder pads were a common trope of SF, and GW were apparently unable to find an academic who would have argued against that.
Just imagine for a moment, what a fine TV ad campaign GW could have made with 700,000 $, doubling customer numbers and revenue within 2 years. Instead, they want to crush tiny companies with crazy claims.
Kroothawk wrote: Just imagine for a moment, what a fine TV ad campaign GW could have made with 700,000 $, doubling customer numbers and revenue within 2 years. Instead, they want to crush tiny companies with crazy claims.
Let's be honest here, anyone who has seen GW's past attempts at television adverts knows that GW and television ads don't mix.
On the otherhand, GW and static image banner ads might do nicely.
Or a worldwide summer campaign with an online interactive map showing near to real-time updates in territory ownership as various factions battle in bunkers and FLGS across the globe. There would be a meaningful milestone every month where the faction that succeeded the most would progress the storyline in a meaningful way and see a model/scenario/artwork/scenery release honoring its achievements.
The benefits to the HHHobby and player base are SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that there's really no reason not to do this.
sourclams wrote: Or a worldwide summer campaign with an online interactive map showing near to real-time updates in territory ownership as various factions battle in bunkers and FLGS across the globe. There would be a meaningful milestone every month where the faction that succeeded the most would progress the storyline in a meaningful way and see a model/scenario/artwork/scenery release honoring its achievements.
The benefits to the HHHobby and player base are SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that there's really no reason not to do this.
You forget the biggest rule of 40k: the story never moves. It's intentionally set at 1 second to midnight as set dressing, and to give you an excuse to push models about the table.
Stupid as it sounds... those would be two separate budgets.
GW not having advertising... ... ... Nope, that's still stupid. (Grow the hobby you morons! Don't scare them away with huge prices - bring new people in ! And you kids! Offa my lawn! *Waves fist.*)
AndrewC wrote: @privateer, how can you discuss an appeal, when the decision hasn't been made yet. Let's not count chickens just yet.
@Kilkrazy, do we know if they even looked?
Cheers
Andrew
That's just the way the America courts work. If GW loses, I'd wager that they will appeal. If CHS loses, and the lawyers are still willing to work pro bono, there will be an appeal.
Discussing an appeal now is no different than discussing what you might have for dessert before you know where you're going for dinner; there will be a lot of speculation and guessing, and much of it will be suppositional, but you can get a good idea of who will do what, just based on the information you have in front of you.
Without knowing what the rulings are, though, it's impossible to guess the grounds for appeal. So while I suppose I could try and imagine all possible grounds...I'd rather wait a couple weeks and see what the actual situation is first.
I think there are procedural grounds and those grounds for appeal are pretty simple. CHS' products should have been allowed to be compared physically and directly in the forms they're physically sold to what they were alleged to have infringed as a matter of the normal procedure for this type of dispute. Instead the judge has only allowed a comparison of CHS website photos to GWs provided images. Meanwhile GW is pursuing claims that both products and images were separate and distinct infringements but in the absence of the physical model comparison the juries determination could be ruled only applicable to the website photos. That is to say by GW preventing that comparison they by default failed to meet their burden of proof against the product lines themselves.
At the end of the day GW may win, but that win would be limited to taking down images from a website that has since already removed many of those images in question.
AndrewC wrote: @privateer, how can you discuss an appeal, when the decision hasn't been made yet. Let's not count chickens just yet.
@Kilkrazy, do we know if they even looked?
Cheers
Andrew
I don't, but my guess is they didn't look very hard, owing to the following reasons:
1. GW's legal apparatus has been revealed by these proceedings to be very shonky. It would not surprise me if they simply didn't think of looking for their own expert witness.
2. If they did think of it, I reckon it would be very hard to find an expert in historical and SF armour forms who would with a straight face argue that the SM shoulder pad is an independent original creation. Just my opinion, of course.
I'll preempt the scary red writing with a reminder about topic folks! Until the trial started, everybody had done a really good job of keeping on track, in the last few weeks I think the mods have been very restrained about some of the tangents that have cropped up recently. I would have fired off a rant about some of the irrelevant stuff being posted if it wouldn't drag things further off topic.
I don't suppose anyone has heard who has been testifying over the last three days, have they? If I'm not mistaken, shouldn't this be CHS Defence Week in the courtroom?
AndrewC wrote: @privateer, how can you discuss an appeal, when the decision hasn't been made yet. Let's not count chickens just yet.
@Kilkrazy, do we know if they even looked?
Cheers
Andrew
That's just the way the America courts work. If GW loses, I'd wager that they will appeal. If CHS loses, and the lawyers are still willing to work pro bono, there will be an appeal.
Discussing an appeal now is no different than discussing what you might have for dessert before you know where you're going for dinner; there will be a lot of speculation and guessing, and much of it will be suppositional, but you can get a good idea of who will do what, just based on the information you have in front of you.
Eric
Yup. There's no guarantee any of this is over once the decision has been made in the case.
In fact, for a client with deep enough pockets I understand it's not unusual to keep the appeal process going in hopes of getting the answer you're after----or so I've heard.
You think getting this case to trial took a long time? Wait and see what happens if there are appeals in the case.
privateer4hire wrote: Yup. There's no guarantee any of this is over once the decision has been made in the case. In fact, for a client with deep enough pockets I understand it's not unusual to keep the appeal process going in hopes of getting the answer you're after----or so I've heard.
You think getting this case to trial took a long time? Wait and see what happens if there are appeals in the case.
The Federal Appeals process is actually fairly speedy by comparison - usually, 18 months or so after the trial for an appropriate ruling. You can try appealing from that, but it's a long shot (as the full Appeals court/Supreme Court don't have to take up an appeal).
Now granted, sometimes that ruling involves returning to the trial court for additional proceedings.
Dysartes wrote: I don't suppose anyone has heard who has been testifying over the last four days, have they? If I'm not mistaken, shouldn't this be CHS Defence Week in the courtroom?
I'll ask the above again, to try to get the thread back on track.
I don't believe that any of the Dakka community was able to attend the trial proceedings. There was some discussion of some people trying to make the time to go, but it doesn't appear to have panned out. As such, we're more than likely stuck not getting any meaningful updates until the week after next, at the earliest.
Saldiven wrote: I don't believe that any of the Dakka community was able to attend the trial proceedings. There was some discussion of some people trying to make the time to go, but it doesn't appear to have panned out. As such, we're more than likely stuck not getting any meaningful updates until the week after next, at the earliest.
Originally it was supposed to have gone on during AdeptiCon, but then it got moved probably for smart reasons... THe 40k championships might have had some missing people
czakk wrote: There have been some filings we can look at:
So they received the letter from the copyright office on June 7 and it was dated January 31? This letter's been discussed at length in this thread and has been around since January, are they seriously trying to pass it off as being received on June 7? And they wait until June 9 to send the copyright office general counsel a letter? That's some serious lag time...
Q So the designers of the Tau race did not draw inspiration from the look -- for the look of the Tau from within Games Workshop? A That's correct. They looked for it inside their own imaginations. Q You also testified that you wanted to look very sci-fi, correct? A Yes, probably. Q And by sci-fi you were referring to science fiction? A As popularly understood, yes. Q And specifically science fiction created by third parties? A No, I didn't say that. Q It was not any science fiction that existed within the Tau universe -- or within the Warhammer 40K universe, you've already testified, correct? A Yes. It is perfectly possible for us to invent something from scratch, you know. That's our stock in trade.
Uh-huh. Tau are completely novel.
Q. And that's in a sentence that says, "Assault squads are equipped with close combat weapons, such as bolt pistols and chainswords. Their jump packs enable them to strike hard and fast, leaping over difficult terrain to quickly engage the enemy." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And you contend that jump pack is a trademark of Games Workshop; is that right?
In a nutshell, this has always been my problem with GW's TM claims.
czakk wrote: There have been some filings we can look at:
So they received the letter from the copyright office on June 7 and it was dated January 31? This letter's been discussed at length in this thread and has been around since January, are they seriously trying to pass it off as being received on June 7? And they wait until June 9 to send the copyright office general counsel a letter? That's some serious lag time...
Not sure what's going on there... did they get another rejection letter for another set of shoulder pads? Or have we seen this before.
A. Yeah. I mean, the jury have heard quite a lot about the forums that people who are fans of Warhammer 40,000 look at and post on, and actually -- I know you're not allowed to look at the Internet, but if you were allowed to look at the Internet, what you would see is an awful lot of speculation about this case, and actually our customers, our staff, and even just people who are interested all know about this case and have for a very long time. So, the likelihood of there being any confusion where there's such a publicly well known case, it's just not really very likely because people know. Q. But, Ms. Stevenson, you haven't presented any evidence of confusion as to the products added in the second phase of the case, have you? A. No. Q. And Games Workshop's not aware of any complaints about the quality of those products, either, is it? A. Not from people who buy the products directly, but -- THE COURT: That's the answer. Thanks. Next question.
Can we turn to PX-1022, please? And let's start at page 2. Now, Ms. Stevenson, as you recall, you testified that this chart was put together at your direction by Games Workshop's hobby team, and they painted and posed the Games Workshop figures on the right column to look like the colors and poses of the Chapterhouse products, is that right? A Almost. The hobby team didn't put the chart together, but they did build and paint the model. Q And you said that you found this confusing when you see them side by side like this? A I find it compelling. Q You said you found it confusing, correct? A I said customers could find it confusing. Q But you haven't offered any evidence that customers have ever been confused by these two products, have you? A Well, they haven't seen these two images side by side, so they couldn't be. Q So that's a no? A Um -- Q Have you offered any evidence that any customers have found these two products confusing? A I said that I thought it was obvious that they would be confusing. Q But that's not my question.
(Emphasis added.)
And finally, the nefarious "customer confusion" emails:
Q. "Dear sir/madam, I have recently come across this website and it provides the URL for a ChapterhouseStudios.com page selling conversion bits for Games Workshop kits." Do you see that part? A I do see that. Q And looking at the last sentence of that paragraph, it says: "I'm looking at their Space Marine shoulder pads here, Salamander, Luna Wolves, et cetera, which look reasonable enough, but perhaps lack the sharpness and detail of, quote, unquote, official Games Workshop products." Do you see that? A It says "GW," but, yes. Q In that last sentence, the person's distinguishing the Chapterhouse products that he saw from, quote, unquote, official GW products, isn't he?
Q Okay. And this email, if we could blow up the email portion of the bottom third of the first page, this one is also sent to legal U.K. I assume that's Games Workshop legal, is that right? A That's right. Q Okay. And, again, it provides a URL for a ChapterhouseStudios.com web page, is that right? A That's right. Q And the text says: "Hi. I've just found this website, and they are offering their own resin cast conversion kits for Space Marine Rhino and Land Raider." Do you see that? A Yes. Q Okay. And looking back up to the email header, do you see the address where it says the email address is at an @Yahoo.co.uk? A I do. Q And I believe a moment ago you indicated that that would indicate a U.K. email address, is that right?
think it's the same we have seen before. I like that both parties are now asking for the judge to rule that they are right and the opposing party is wrong before decision by jury.
Games Workshop believes that the term jetbike is a valid
2 trademark it owns, and no other miniatures company can use that
3 term; is that correct?
4 A. In tabletop -- in terms of tabletop hobby war games?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. That's our belief, yes.
7 Q. But jetbike is not Games Workshop's registered trademark,
8 right?
9 A. No.
10 Q. And you know that other companies besides Games Workshop do
11 use the term jetbike in their miniatures products?
12 A. Yeah. You kindly brought that to my attention during my
13 deposition.
Games Workshop claims to own the trademark for the word 'jetbike'.
Mr Keener more or less demolishes GW's case for potential confusion in the market, which is interesting.
Wow... that was testimony? I didn't think that real life cross-examinations were actually that dramatically slam-dunk. I thought they only were that embarrassing for the witness on bad TV courtroom drama.
The first quote accounted to 'finecast sucks lol' . The others didn't prove much out of context, especially given that they were selected specifically by someone to make gw look bad. now I'm not saying that gw didn't fail epically but to judge that from a few lines of text is grossly presumptuous
BryllCream wrote: The first quote accounted to 'finecast sucks lol' . The others didn't prove much out of context, especially given that they were selected specifically by someone to make gw look bad. now I'm not saying that gw didn't fail epically but to judge that from a few lines of text is grossly presumptuous
Aerethan wrote: The other quotes prove that GW has no evidence of brand confusion. There's no other context needed.
Yes there is.
Poster A - "Hey, does anyone know w here I can get some shoulder pads for my space marines? I can't see any on the GW website"
Poster B - "Sure, there's some here [chapterhouse link]"
Bam, Chapterhouse just got £20 from someone who assumed they were a GW outfit.
Aerethan wrote: The other quotes prove that GW has no evidence of brand confusion. There's no other context needed.
Yes there is.
Poster A - "Hey, does anyone know w here I can get some shoulder pads for my space marines? I can't see any on the GW website"
Poster B - "Sure, there's some here [chapterhouse link]"
Bam, Chapterhouse just got £20 from someone who assumed they were a GW outfit.
That is not at all brand confusion. That is Poster B misleading A, furthermore, the CHS site is very obviously not GW.
Lastly, GW has no evidence of this happening. Potential is all theory.
That is not at all brand confusion. That is Poster B misleading A, furthermore, the CHS site is very obviously not GW.
And is it very obviously not a licensed reseller? A casual browser could assume so.
Lastly, GW has no evidence of this happening. Potential is all theory.
Wouldn't it be enough to explain how it could happen? If I open a burger bar stealing McDonald's imagery, do they have to actually record customers going in saying "Gosh this must be a McDonald's", or could they just show a court the obvious similarities between their restaurant and the newcomer? That is what GW are doing, or trying to do. The alternative is to email everyone who's ever shopped there saying "Hi, did you think you were buying actually GW stuff?", which is clearly unfeasable. So you're demanding evidence that's impossible to produce.
That is not at all brand confusion. That is Poster B misleading A, furthermore, the CHS site is very obviously not GW.
And is it very obviously not a licensed reseller? A casual browser could assume so.
Lastly, GW has no evidence of this happening. Potential is all theory.
Wouldn't it be enough to explain how it could happen? If I open a burger bar stealing McDonald's imagery, do they have to actually record customers going in saying "Gosh this must be a McDonald's", or could they just show a court the obvious similarities between their restaurant and the newcomer? That is what GW are doing, or trying to do. The alternative is to email everyone who's ever shopped there saying "Hi, did you think you were buying actually GW stuff?", which is clearly unfeasable. So you're demanding evidence that's impossible to produce.
However, if you were to be all 'Hey, you know where I can get some new rims for my Ford? The dealership said they didn't have any' and someone else said "Check out this website- they got some rims that'll work", well, there's no product confusion. Also, there's no lost revenue there- if GWdid in fact make and sell those shoulderpad kits, then there might be a leg for them to stand on- as it is, it's a different company selling a different product that happens to fit the first company's stuff.
That is not at all brand confusion. That is Poster B misleading A, furthermore, the CHS site is very obviously not GW.
And is it very obviously not a licensed reseller? A casual browser could assume so.
Lastly, GW has no evidence of this happening. Potential is all theory.
Wouldn't it be enough to explain how it could happen? If I open a burger bar stealing McDonald's imagery, do they have to actually record customers going in saying "Gosh this must be a McDonald's", or could they just show a court the obvious similarities between their restaurant and the newcomer? That is what GW are doing, or trying to do. The alternative is to email everyone who's ever shopped there saying "Hi, did you think you were buying actually GW stuff?", which is clearly unfeasable. So you're demanding evidence that's impossible to produce.
However, if you were to be all 'Hey, you know where I can get some new rims for my Ford? The dealership said they didn't have any' and someone else said "Check out this website- they got some rims that'll work", well, there's no product confusion. Also, there's no lost revenue there- if GWdid in fact make and sell those shoulderpad kits, then there might be a leg for them to stand on- as it is, it's a different company selling a different product that happens to fit the first company's stuff.
This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.
GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.
This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.
GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.
So it's okay for CHS to make money off them? Common sense is not legality. Ethically yes, I don't have a problem with it. But they're still piggybacking on GW's IP.
BryllCream wrote: A better allegory would be passing off a counterfit car as a Ford, having it modelled and painted as a Ford but without the actual logo.
It's like those Chinese cars with names like "Hunda" and "Bercedes Menz".
This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.
GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.
So it's okay for CHS to make money off them? Common sense is not legality. Ethically yes, I don't have a problem with it. But they're still piggybacking on GW's IP.
DId you read the actual testimony where GW admits that they have zero proof of anybody consusing Chapterhouse for GW? Instead every piece of evidence submitted by GW makes it pretty clear that the people knew it was not a GW product.
According to your logic GW should sue Gale Force 9. Somebody at my FLGS was putting together a box of Space Marines once and didn't have any glue. He was clearly working on GW models and some other guy told him that they sell glue by the counter. He picked up a bottle of GF9 glue and used it on his GW models. Clearly GF9 is piggybacking of GW.
They even have terrain for the table that you play GW games on!
See how little sense your argument makes?
Making something that you can use with something else is not piggybacking on GW's IP.
Making something and saying "This is an official GW shoulderpad made by GW" would be piggybacking on GW's IP.
GW has not been able to produce a single shred of evidence that this happened and the testimony by GW Itself makes it clear that the customers that contacted them KNEW it wasn't a GW product and were not confused by it.
Edit: Just saw Alpharius post, didn't realize there was another page after this post. Will delete if you want me to, but won't talk anymore about it otherwise.
BryllCream wrote: A better allegory would be passing off a counterfit car as a Ford, having it modelled and painted as a Ford but without the actual logo.
It's like those Chinese cars with names like "Hunda" and "Bercedes Menz".
This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.
GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.
So it's okay for CHS to make money off them? Common sense is not legality. Ethically yes, I don't have a problem with it. But they're still piggybacking on GW's IP.
And GW piggy backs off of other IP. H.R. Geiger for example. There is no way in hell you can argue that tyranids are not INSANELY based off of the "Alien" aesthetic.
CHS's products look unique compared to anything GW makes.
BryllCream wrote: A better allegory would be passing off a counterfit car as a Ford, having it modelled and painted as a Ford but without the actual logo.
It's like those Chinese cars with names like "Hunda" and "Bercedes Menz".
This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.
GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.
So it's okay for CHS to make money off them? Common sense is not legality. Ethically yes, I don't have a problem with it. But they're still piggybacking on GW's IP.
And both Wendy's and Burger King should be shut down for offering "Mcdonald's" hamburgers as well - on a bun, no less!
BryllCream wrote: A better allegory would be passing off a counterfit car as a Ford, having it modelled and painted as a Ford but without the actual logo.
It's like those Chinese cars with names like "Hunda" and "Bercedes Menz".
This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.
GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.
So it's okay for CHS to make money off them? Common sense is not legality. Ethically yes, I don't have a problem with it. But they're still piggybacking on GW's IP.
And GW piggy backs off of other IP. H.R. Geiger for example. There is no way in hell you can argue that tyranids are not INSANELY based off of the "Alien" aesthetic.
CHS's products look unique compared to anything GW makes.
But Mr Merrel said that GW sculptors never ever need resources outside GW. They even created Tau from scratch, from their minds and stuff...
BryllCream wrote: A better allegory would be passing off a counterfit car as a Ford, having it modelled and painted as a Ford but without the actual logo.
It's like those Chinese cars with names like "Hunda" and "Bercedes Menz".
This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.
GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.
So it's okay for CHS to make money off them? Common sense is not legality. Ethically yes, I don't have a problem with it. But they're still piggybacking on GW's IP.
Sergeant Bastonne ... a clear reference to the boys that fought in the Siege of Bastogne ... all WW2 vets should go after GW for this.
Guardsman Marbo .... a clear anagram of Rambo, David Morrell should sue the PANTS off of GW for a BLATANT rip-off.
Kor'sarro Khan .... a direct pull of the man born as Temujin .... 1 in 500 Chinese people can prove a direct lineage from Ghengis .... would that make a class action lawsuit viable with that many clients?
These are just a few of the pulls that GW has done and it's just wink wink, nod nod, and all is good. When someone makes a model because GW doesn't or aftermarket parts for models that GW do, then they are stealing money from GW .... nope, not even close.
Do I think that Chapterhouse was 100% right? No. I KNOW that they were not 100% wrong though.
Alpharius wrote: I thought we already read that GW admitted having no evidence of Customer Confusion?
On top of that - that's probably enough on that in this thread.
Feel free to start a thread in Dakka Discussions on it.
One of the emails read specifically mentioned that the person didn't know if CHS was licensed or not, that could be an in for GW to argue that there is a problem because people are (or at least -were- before this trial) confusing CHS for a licensed company.
That is not at all brand confusion. That is Poster B misleading A, furthermore, the CHS site is very obviously not GW.
And is it very obviously not a licensed reseller? A casual browser could assume so.
Lastly, GW has no evidence of this happening. Potential is all theory.
Wouldn't it be enough to explain how it could happen? If I open a burger bar stealing McDonald's imagery, do they have to actually record customers going in saying "Gosh this must be a McDonald's", or could they just show a court the obvious similarities between their restaurant and the newcomer? That is what GW are doing, or trying to do. The alternative is to email everyone who's ever shopped there saying "Hi, did you think you were buying actually GW stuff?", which is clearly unfeasable. So you're demanding evidence that's impossible to produce.
However, if you were to be all 'Hey, you know where I can get some new rims for my Ford? The dealership said they didn't have any' and someone else said "Check out this website- they got some rims that'll work", well, there's no product confusion. Also, there's no lost revenue there- if GWdid in fact make and sell those shoulderpad kits, then there might be a leg for them to stand on- as it is, it's a different company selling a different product that happens to fit the first company's stuff.
This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.
GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.
um, GW sells a crap ton of shoulder pads. They sell tons of metal 10 packs as well as full lines of resin ones. They practically make and sell shoulder pads for almost every one CHS does.
Of all the things to argue, that is not a valid point and one of the examples where GW can show they do sell shoulder pads as a directly competing product.
I can definitely see where GW is coming from. They need to protect their IP. Can't blame them really. My prediction is the court will rule in GW's favor regardless of reasons given here as counterpoints. I understand where you all are coming from but at the end of the day I think GW has a better case in the eyes of the law.
Saldiven wrote: I don't believe that any of the Dakka community was able to attend the trial proceedings. There was some discussion of some people trying to make the time to go, but it doesn't appear to have panned out. As such, we're more than likely stuck not getting any meaningful updates until the week after next, at the earliest.
Originally it was supposed to have gone on during AdeptiCon, but then it got moved probably for smart reasons... THe 40k championships might have had some missing people
Dozer Blades wrote: I can definitely see where GW is coming from. They need to protect their IP. Can't blame them really. My prediction is the court will rule in GW's favor regardless of reasons given here as counterpoints. I understand where you all are coming from but at the end of the day I think GW has a better case in the eyes of the law.
Not on many of their claims, especially many of their trademark claims. They should have kept the focus narrower, and they would have had a better case. As it is, it'll probably be a mixed verdict.
To make a narrower argument GW would have had to make an acknowledgement it wasn't initially prepared to, that there are legal and fair use ways to use their trademark.
GW wants a full kill of CHS... The reality is that even in the most extreme interpretation of law no part of what CHS is so indisputably wrong that a narrow argument could strike a killing blow. In a more realistic interpretation very little if anything CHS did could be interpreted as wrong and even then it wouldn't be enough to kill CHS, just a product or just images from the website.
This case scares a lot of law firms that fear GW's law firms lack of regard for how this will impact case law. For many firms a ruling in GWs favor stands to alter the fundamentals of how their clients do business and open a lot of them upto potential litigation. How out there is GW's position?-Simply put law firms are likely lining up to bring the appeal for CHS pro-bono.
nkelsch wrote: um, GW sells a crap ton of shoulder pads. They sell tons of metal 10 packs as well as full lines of resin ones. They practically make and sell shoulder pads for almost every one CHS does.
Of all the things to argue, that is not a valid point and one of the examples where GW can show they do sell shoulder pads as a directly competing product.
And yet GW hasn't been able to show side-by-side comparisons of products... In the few instances where GW did, they were products GW only released after CHS. The issue is more involved than that as well... The nature of how the products are sold is supposed to be part of the comparison... This should really limits product confusion to metal shoulder pads that are sold individually... Which is really none. The fact that GW only sells those metal shoulder pads directly, which tends to limit the possibility of confusion.
In regards to the Jet Bike, I know Rogure Trader era art was styled heavily after 2000AD and Judge Dredd and I think some of their artists freelanced for GW? I'm not up on my Dredd reading but weren't there jet bikes in those comics series that the GW versions were heavily influenced/based on?
I know I've seen the flying lawmaster in the Stallone movie but can't recall if it's in the actual comics. Either way it's not a unique concept as it's also in Star Wars and flying bikes/motocrycles are in a bunch of older sci fi works that well predate GW.
GW aren't trying to claim sole ownership of the term "Jetbike", they are trying to claim ownership of the term in the context of tabletop gaming.
Their problem is however that like a lot of their claims they have "assumed" ownership in this context but not actually registered that claim anywhere officially.
The problem is a historic one as they haven't had solid IP protection for many years and this has been highlighted since the CHS case.
IMO it is too trivial a thing to be worth trying to trademark.
You can't stop other companies making jetcycles, flikes (flying bikes), gravbikes, gravcycles and so on, compatible with 28mm tabletop games, by registering jetbike as a trademark.
Exactly, jet powered or similar anti-gravity vehicles are a staple of sci-fi, so it'd be perfectly reasonable for any other table top game (like the Judge Dredd one by Mongoose) including jet bikes in some form or another.
It's also a pretty descriptive term; a bike powered by a jet.
I liked this snippet from the Jones cross examination.
"Q. But you understand that just because you use a word first in commerce, that doesn't mean you automatically get a trademark. You understand that, right?
A. No, actually. If I've got -- I don't quite understand what
you're saying. If I sell a product which has a title on it and I'm using that as market trade for several years and establishing prior use, then that's a trademark.
Q. Let me give you an example that will probably help. If you have a product and it's a desk, and you sell your desk, and you say this is a desk, that doesn't mean that you automatically get a trademark on the term desk. You understand that, right?
I wonder how many of the jurors are planning to start a new army? With or without CHS bits. Maybe this is the culmination of the last decade of GW's advertising budget, laser focused on 12 people.
d-usa wrote: GW could have filed hours of slam dunk testimony in support of their request for judgement, but they didn't...
Yup.
Although with a motion for a directed verdict you are trying to show that the other side hasn't met the burden of proof - hasn't entered enough evidence to provide a basis for a jury to make a decision in their favour. Not that you've won the case. So you don't necessarily need hours of testimony.
Dont know, in my NON legal opinion, GW dont have a really good case at all, considering Automotive parts have already been ruled on a similar situation in the US. Having said that, American mentality generally speaking to back big business all the way, thus likely the size of GW be more important than anything else and since this is average joes trial that will weight, so I dont know. Dont think they should win, but it is not impossible, certainly hope they dont.
aka_mythos wrote: I think there are procedural grounds and those grounds for appeal are pretty simple. CHS' products should have been allowed to be compared physically and directly in the forms they're physically sold to what they were alleged to have infringed as a matter of the normal procedure for this type of dispute. Instead the judge has only allowed a comparison of CHS website photos to GWs provided images. Meanwhile GW is pursuing claims that both products and images were separate and distinct infringements but in the absence of the physical model comparison the juries determination could be ruled only applicable to the website photos. That is to say by GW preventing that comparison they by default failed to meet their burden of proof against the product lines themselves.
At the end of the day GW may win, but that win would be limited to taking down images from a website that has since already removed many of those images in question.
That sounds like it is pretty accurate. Where did you come up with that?
czakk wrote: There have been some filings we can look at:
So they received the letter from the copyright office on June 7 and it was dated January 31? This letter's been discussed at length in this thread and has been around since January, are they seriously trying to pass it off as being received on June 7? And they wait until June 9 to send the copyright office general counsel a letter? That's some serious lag time...
Not sure what's going on there... did they get another rejection letter for another set of shoulder pads? Or have we seen this before.
It is a second rejection letter from a different examiner. It was sent, oh, about right after Moskin was sanctioned for withholding the first one...and only just surfaced...Judge Kennelly needs to do his job. If there has not been a referral to the Bar Association over these shenanigans, which include spoliation of evidence allegations in addition to the withheld documents, Judge Kennelly is failing at his job as a federal judge.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
