mwnciboo wrote:
You cannot claim to be filling in gaps in a Market with others IP.

I could claim the same, that Apple don't make a Wrist-watch so I will make one called the iWatch, design it to be compatible, white rounded corners etc.

Copy elements of design of the original iPod, then make a mission statement that says "I'm here to fill the gaps in Apple's Product Range" and then act surprised when Apple jumps on me?

Look at Flames of War, there is no IP claim on WW2, so there are lots of Companies producing the exact same Tanks in various or the same scales.

Then look at GW's Universe, something they created from nothing and own almost entirely, now other Companies cannot directly reference their material without permisson. Fantasy Flight Games and others have all worked with GW, companies like Codex Pictures or THQ, to produce in Universe IP items all above board and legally.

CHS might win, they might not, but it's very difficult to see how they will not end up in a protracted Legal War over the next 10 years if they continue to try to release things that get GW's attention.

I guess we have to rehash 150+ pages of discussions in a single post.

1) It is perfectly legal to refer to another product with its trademark name to indicate compatibility. CHS won on almost all of those counts in the lawsuit. Most were dropped by GW even before the whole thing went to trial, and at trial CHS won almost 2/3 of all claims against them.
2) You cannot copyright common geometric shapes, public domain icons, numbers, numerals, the shape of the human body, etc. For example, the shoulder pads GW makes are not copyrightable, because they are just a 1/4 sphere. Their ornamentation however is copyrightable if it is outside the public domain.
3) It is perfectly legal to make product compatible if you keep the above guidelines in mind. CHS definitely overstepped its bounds on some issues. The verdict reflects this. However GW went into this lawsuit claiming that every single item CHS has ever produced infringed every single trademark and copyright GW claimed to hold. In the end GW could not prove a lot of their trademarks and copyrights and/or CHS was found not to be infringing. There were a couple of cases where CHS was found to be infringing and that is where the $25k in penalties come from. However $25k is a lot less that the $400k and complete shut down of CHS that GW wanted.

 mwnciboo wrote:
You cannot claim to be filling in gaps in a Market with others IP.

I could claim the same, that Apple don't make a Wrist-watch so I will make one called the iWatch, design it to be compatible, white rounded corners etc.

Copy elements of design of the original iPod, then make a mission statement that says "I'm here to fill the gaps in Apple's Product Range" and then act surprised when Apple jumps on me?

Look at Flames of War, there is no IP claim on WW2, so there are lots of Companies producing the exact same Tanks in various or the same scales.

Then look at GW's Universe, something they created from nothing and own almost entirely, now other Companies cannot directly reference their material without permisson. Fantasy Flight Games and others have all worked with GW, companies like Codex Pictures or THQ, to produce in Universe IP items all above board and legally.

CHS might win, they might not, but it's very difficult to see how they will not end up in a protracted Legal War over the next 10 years if they continue to try to release things that get GW's attention.

Don't hate on CHS because they make some crappy bits. I didn't know pewter could look like fine cast until I got their bits. I got a couple of replacement thunder hammers with the same issue. I just wasn't happy with their quality and don't plan on buying anything else from them and haven't in about 3-4 years. If only liquid green stuff was around back then. I will say I only dropped $10 on them and am happy I didn't drop more than that. If you want quality go for Scibor or Pig Iron.

Mwnciboo, I highly recommend you read this thread in its entirety before posting further.

If you simply do not have that kind of time, then read the jury's verdict (if its out yet). That will outline why you are wrong.

I would wish people stop referring to Apple cases, Apple patents are some of the most questionable patents around and a firm case to those that maintain patent law should be reformed.

Now from what I remember from Apple vs Samsung trial,judge was an ex apple attorney and for sure the jury foreman was somebody who not only had the same vague patents as apple did (method of downloading song or video from the internet) but also he had a legal struggle he lost with Samsung (which he claimed did not feel he should mention because more than 10 years had passed), adding to all that the speed the jury gave verdict and the amount of random numbers thrown as damages (even making the galaxy tab 10.1 which started the whole thing non infringing) it is questionable why the whole thing is not labeled as a mistral.

Sorry for been off topic.

Redacted.

Mohoc wrote:

2) You cannot copyright common geometric shapes, public domain icons, numbers, numerals, the shape of the human body, etc. For example, the shoulder pads GW makes are not copyrightable, because they are just a 1/4 sphere. Their ornamentation however is copyrightable if it is outside the public domain.

Copyright is more difficult to establish, aye.

Trademark is a bit of a different matter though. Within specific domains, you can trademark what would be considered public domain names, shapes, and iconography.

The whole "Spots the Space Marine" kerfluffle originated because Games Workshop does hold a trademark on the term Space Marine within the realm of gaming. When they expanded into other media, however, they tried to assert their right to enforce that trademark elsewhere. There's some logic to their position, but it's a difficult case to make without filing for a proper trademark, particularly in the United States.

Moreover, you can copyright some public domain things in relation to a larger work. If you flip through the verdict you see that they ruled in GW's favor on things like shoulder pads with Roman numerals on them. While you'd have a difficult time asserting copyright to the shape (though CHS also lost on just blank shoulder pads, which does seem rather odd to be honest when you consider that they won on some of their other shoulder pads), if you've got the shape and the design, and you have evidence that you've depicted that exact thing in artwork or other forms, regardless of whether or not you can copyright the individual components in isolation you've got a case for copyright violation.

As for 'rounded corners and calling it an iWatch'...

Look up iDog.... A plastic speaker. Shaped like a dog. With rounded corners.

GW lost, and deserved to lose.

The Auld Grump, bleedin' amateurs!

Some of those items seem a bit "random" as to why CHS lost the ability to sell them like the crested shoulder pad (Pic attached), when they can still sell pretty much the same thing just with a Lion emblem sculpted on it.

Would this mean other bits makers, current or future, would (or should) remove any shoulder pads that have that "crest" from their catalogs and stop selling them?

Judging from the descriptions in the court document it seems kind of strange that CHS can't sell shoulder pads with Roman numerals on them when they still can sell a Terminator shoulder pad with a Roman Numeral on it.

They can no longer sell the 2 studded shoulder pads (pics also attached), but they can still sell the one with a small shield attached. That seems very weird to me.

Would this be part of the appeals process? Trying to get some clarity on the items that are no longer allowed based on what is now allowed?

 prplehippo wrote:
Some of those items seem a bit "random" as to why CHS lost the ability to sell them like the crested shoulder pad (Pic attached), when they can still sell pretty much the same thing just with a Lion emblem sculpted on it.

Would this mean other bits makers, current or future, would (or should) remove any shoulder pads that have that "crest" from their catalogs and stop selling them?

Judging from the descriptions in the court document it seems kind of strange that CHS can't sell shoulder pads with Roman numerals on them when they still can sell a Terminator shoulder pad with a Roman Numeral on it.

They can no longer sell the 2 studded shoulder pads (pics also attached), but they can still sell the one with a small shield attached. That seems very weird to me.

Would this be part of the appeals process? Trying to get some clarity on the items that are no longer allowed based on what is now allowed?

I think the idea that the jury were going for there is that GW have the right to be the only ones making the generic shoulder pads that you'd see on any flavour of marine veteran but CH have every right to slap a lion on it, call it a chapter specific one that GW doesn't produce and allow it.

Blank shoulder pads that are pretty much carbon copies of GW products have been ruled as infringing in this case but as stated above if you put artwork on that shoulderpad that GW does not produce your fine to sell those,

Which is a little odd as the US copywrite office have stated that the blank shoulder pads are not protectable haven't they, twice now I believe??

We're finished with the OT digression, right folks?

mullet_steve wrote:
Blank shoulder pads that are pretty much carbon copies of GW products have been ruled as infringing in this case but as stated above if you put artwork on that shoulderpad that GW does not produce your fine to sell those,

Which is a little odd as the US copywrite office have stated that the blank shoulder pads are not protectable haven't they, twice now I believe??

Thats something that's likely going to be appealed, since the judge twice ruled contrary ti tge copyright office and then denied allowing the jury from hearing testimony from the representative of the copyright office. CHS wasn't allowed to inform the jury that any outside decisions had been made.

The copyright office determined that a shoulder pad wasn't protectable. Then GW submitted to them the shoulder pad with an arrow on it and the copyright office again denied protectability.

I think the inconsistencies in the jury verdict are exactly why the judge called them for an extra meeting.

 mwnciboo wrote:
This whole thing has gotten stupid.

Seriously, CHS deserve to be shot down for being stupid. Clearly infringing the IP using certain lines and not even having the where-with-all to leave enough doubt to be viable.

Look at others like Anvil Industries, they have been extremely careful not to leave themselves open because they know GW will be on them like "a pack of Zombies after the last human being on earth. "

Even CHS website states...

"ChapterHouse Studios specializes in the creation of high end resin and metal miniature kits and bits applicable for use with a variety of Warhammer and Warhammer 40k models and the games.Our mission is to help address public demand for unavailable parts and iconography with the highest standards possible. "

Iconography is the dodgy bit (equally referencing the IP you are ripping is a bad start too), you've got to be so careful. This whole thing could have been avoided if they had been a bit more clever. Granted GW are hammering them, but so would I if I owned something and someone was making money off my own coat-tails. I think there is some Anti-GW Jingo-ism meets pseudo understanding of Economics and IP law here, with a big dose of "Morale Soap-boxing".

Like them or Hate them GW does own alot of IP, and there an awful lot of organisations that own things like the Song "Happy Birthday" and have to pay royalties etc and cannot reproduce without permission.

Look at Apples Claims on Samsung...Which they won.



So IP law and all it's associated elements are complex as hell...Best solution, don't make your product similar to anything else and make sure your register it, for a TM, Patent or as Intellectual property.

Yea, no. I'm getting tired of reminding people that Apple did NOT win on the shape of the phone. Not only did certain of Samsung's phones not infringe the various design patents, those designs were for a combination of design features, not just the shape of the phone. It was the outer shape, edge to edge black glass, thin bezel, AND a horizontal speaker. Apple never claimed to own a rectangle with rounded corners.

Did Samsung have to use all of those features in combination, knowing apple had a design patent? No. And in fact the jury verdict says that, yes, Samsung can make a rectangular phone with rounded corners that does not infringe Apple's patent. In the majority of devices, Samsung simply chose to make their phones look like iPhones. Why? Because Samsung wanted to capture Apple's market by doing exactly what Apple did to become successful, exactly. Not a new way to do the same thing, not inspired by Apple's inventions and good ideas, but by doing exactly what Apple did.

Were you at the trial, did you actually listen to the evidence, did you at all take the time to see what Samsung really did, or did you just underline "rounded corners" to make some not terribly apropos argument about a COPYRIGHT case?

Edit: And I will go ahead and add that not only did CHS win on the vast majority of the total asserted claims, not only did Magistrate judge Gilbert tell GW that CHS has a 'profitable business' and will probably win on some of the asserted claims, but that quote from the CHS you are ripping on, THAT was a claim n the case that, gasp, CHS WON on.

Before you go spewing vitriol about the state of IP law, do your homework. There's plenty to be pissed about, but you are way off the mark, and I'm betting you simply don't like CHS for some personal reason that has nothing th to with the law or a legitimate, sensible, logical criticism of the system.

weeble1000 wrote:
Before you go spewing vitriol about the state of IP law, do your homework.

It's amazing how common it is for people to go onto an internet forum and post completely inaccurate information when that very same internet would provide them with all the correct information if that person had bothered to spend the time educating himself.

A while back someone wondered why Roger Dean was not involved in this case against GW, as GW ripped him off when they produced the Tau.

Seems he's currently busy with a case against James Cameron for something similar.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
A while back someone wondered why Roger Dean was not involved in this case against GW, as GW ripped him off when they produced the Tau.

Seems he's currently busy with a case against James Cameron for something similar.

At the time did anyone say "Why the hell would an illustrator get involved in a copyright case between GW and a third party add-on manufacturer? Are you high?"

 plastictrees wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
A while back someone wondered why Roger Dean was not involved in this case against GW, as GW ripped him off when they produced the Tau.

Seems he's currently busy with a case against James Cameron for something similar.

At the time did anyone say "Why the hell would an illustrator get involved in a copyright case between GW and a third party add-on manufacturer? Are you high?"

No, but several people did bring up that the Tau were stolen from a Roger Dean Album cover for the band Uriah Heep. As far as getting involved, as the closest thing to the actual owner of the copyright...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
A while back someone wondered why Roger Dean was not involved in this case against GW, as GW ripped him off when they produced the Tau.

Seems he's currently busy with a case against James Cameron for something similar.

At the time did anyone say "Why the hell would an illustrator get involved in a copyright case between GW and a third party add-on manufacturer? Are you high?"

No, but several people did bring up that the Tau were stolen from a Roger Dean Album cover for the band Uriah Heep. As far as getting involved, as the closest thing to the actual owner of the copyright...

Are you talking about this image?

Wow. If I were to have seen that, I'd have immediately said "Tau".

 mwnciboo wrote:
You cannot claim to be filling in gaps in a Market with others IP.

I could claim the same, that Apple don't make a Wrist-watch so I will make one called the iWatch, design it to be compatible, white rounded corners etc.

Copy elements of design of the original iPod, then make a mission statement that says "I'm here to fill the gaps in Apple's Product Range" and then act surprised when Apple jumps on me?

Wow. This is another "head in the sand" quote, too.
First... they absolutely CAN claim to be filing those gaps.

Your iWatch example is horrid, at best. It does nothing to mimic what happened between CHS & GW. Rather, it what GW would LIKE you to think happened.

The majority of what CHS did (in keeping as close as possible to your own example) is more akin to saying "I built a wrist strap that is compatible with your iPod Nano. Now, you can wear it like a watch." That IS legal. You're surrounded by it every day and have probably purchased similar products without a second thought.
The closest thing you have to an argument are the full models CHS created. While I happen to disagree, due to the number of differences, those models are close enough to GW's creations that they COULD be problematic. For now, the jury's ruled against them. The case is far from over, however.

Eric

 Enigwolf wrote:
Wow. If I were to have seen that, I'd have immediately said "Tau".

Like when I saw these and said,"Kroot!"? These were out about 3 years before the Tau army came to exist.

"In this case the creative process was that I saw that name, forgot that I saw it, and remembered it later."
-Liz Lemon

Excellent post Shepherd. See, artists take ideas from all over the place. Do I think GW's Kroot are any less entitled to a copyright, no, but this is an excellent example of how narrow copyrights should really be.

The types of differences between these works of art and the Kroot and GW's asserted works of art and at least some of the CHS whole models are pretty darn on par. Art is not created in a vacuum.

I must admit, those MTG cards are VERY damning against GW's Kroot designs, and there is not a damn thing the white knights and apologists can say to dispute that.

If GW was only "inspired" by those cards then CHS's standalone models were just as much only "inspired" by GW's relative works.

I wonder now if WotC will go after GW and throw their own weight around, which I imagine is heavier.

I wonder if there isn't some more logic to the Eastern/Chinese concept of ideas, whereby nature imprints itself on the creativity of individuals, in a flow of patterns that existed externally and passes through the artist, and that replication of those things is actually seen as a great indication of skill?

For something like GW, which historically has had creativity at it's heart (although I realise that has become somewhat strained over recent years) it seems almost paradoxical that they should expend such tremendous energy on shutting down the copiers of something that a) they didn't really create themselves to begin with, in the sense that GW was inspired by so many other SF/fantasy sources and b ) wasn't really costing them any money, or doing the world any harm.

Aside from comments regarding the nature of art and creativity, the whole thing seems utterly bonkers to me...

I actually think both of those are rather different. The "Tau" in the image is holding an ornamental sword, right?

GW was much more inspired by generic anime, as was that image, imo. Same thing with the MTG "kroot".

With so many images out there, unless you made something years ago, it's likely inspired/informed by prior art. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But they're not identical... an important distinction, imo.

Keep in mind that lawyers and creative staff think differently.

For creative staff it is normal to be inspired by the work of colleagues. As long as you add something to it (and don't deny the inspiration), this works perfectly for everyone. This is how GW grew, this is how creativity works.

For a lawyer, inspiration is IP theft paying his lifestyle. So he tries to hunt down creative staff that uses inspiration by colleagues. This is the situation we are currently in. Creative staff is always half convicted when working creatively. This is visibly drying up creativity at least within GW, restricting also the growth of second market. This is a bad thing.

So if you are trying to hunt down creative artists, be aware that you play the lawyer's game, not the creative artists' game.

Personally I am glad that one of GW artists saw the potential of the Magic Nightstalkers for a tabletop race

Good points although as GW found out here, it can be hard to convict even on works directly inspired by your own... if they have the money to defend themselves, at least!

 Aerethan wrote:
I must admit, those MTG cards are VERY damning against GW's Kroot designs, and there is not a damn thing the white knights and apologists can say to dispute that.

If GW was only "inspired" by those cards then CHS's standalone models were just as much only "inspired" by GW's relative works.

I wonder now if WotC will go after GW and throw their own weight around, which I imagine is heavier.

I'm sorry, but is this sarcasm? Other than being emaciated I don't see much similarity there.
As for the album cover, it's pretty much just a similar helmet.
I also have a question about the final judgement- what exactly can it change from the jury verdict?

 Kroothawk wrote:


For a lawyer, inspiration is IP theft paying his lifestyle. So he tries to hunt down creative staff that uses inspiration by colleagues.

You forgot to mention that we also steal candy from children, kick puppies, and throw our recyclables into the trash.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
I must admit, those MTG cards are VERY damning against GW's Kroot designs, and there is not a damn thing the white knights and apologists can say to dispute that.

If GW was only "inspired" by those cards then CHS's standalone models were just as much only "inspired" by GW's relative works.

I wonder now if WotC will go after GW and throw their own weight around, which I imagine is heavier.

I'm sorry, but is this sarcasm? Other than being emaciated I don't see much similarity there.
As for the album cover, it's pretty much just a similar helmet.
I also have a question about the final judgement- what exactly can it change from the jury verdict?

You have to look at it like GW would look at it of the tables were turned.

GW might say that their artwork has the following "combination" of elements:

Gaunt humanoid
Primitive
Wearing few clothes or a loin cloth
Feral features
Spiky hair swept back from the head
Primitive-looking stick-like gun

GW would say that these elements, while individually not necessarily unique, are combined into a unique, protectable "combination" of unprotectable elements and that the "protected expression" in their original work of art is that very unique, very specific combination of loosely described 'elements'. If all of those elements can be found in the accused work, that means the accused work copied "protected expression."

The problem with that analysis is that it first of all has no real relationship to whether certain elements of combinations of elements are or are not original to the asserted work. Second, the generic categorization of those elements is overly simplistic and far too broad. Even within said broadly-defined 'emements' you can find a world of variation.

Spiky hair swept back from the head? Okay, both works sort of have that style, but if you look at the Kroot you see that the spikes are not only of a different color, but are also decorated with clasps and rings, and seem to sprout from slightly larger pours or bits that are the same color as the scalp. You don't see that in the MtG artwork.

Feral features? Sure, both have 'feral features' if you want to define it that broadly. But the Kroot have avian, beak-like faces with pointed tongues. In fact, the Kroot seem to have no teeth at all.

Primitive? One wears a loincloth. The Kroot do not seem to wear loincloths. In fact, the Kroot seem to carry bags and wear jewelry without wearing much in the way of clothes at all, and when they do it seems to have a different cut and style to the breech clout worn by the figure in the MtG art.

This is the problem with GW's view of the world. Those are the sorts of broad, overly general, not terribly specific, meaningless arguments GW made against Chapterhouse Studios. GW claimed to own bipedal Lizards with Mesoamerican weapons. GW claimed that this was unique because those elements (bipedal, lizard, Mesoamerican weapons) was essentially the sum total of the protected expression in their multiple works of art, even with disparate elements coming from disparate works of art! If you look at the claim chart, GW asserted a picture of the Croxigor models and a picture of some Lizardman weapons from the codex art. The implication was that the weapons were copied from the codex art and the bipedal lizard was copied from the Croxigor models. That only makes sense if you are insane.

'We have a "unique" combination of not unique elements that we have defined separately in the broadest possible sense, reduced in that manner to broad generalities because that is where the similarities end between your work and ours, but in point of fact we can't actually point to all of those elements being combined in one work of art. But we totes did both pieces, so, you know, it all belongs to us.'

GW lost on the Lizard Ogre claim, but the argument typifies GW's entire case from roman numerals to slanted gun barrels to piles of skulls. It wasn't actually a presentation of any proper evidence beyond showing the fact finder the two works of art. But is that ipso facto sufficient evidence to prove copying? What you, as an author, own is only that which is specifically unique in your expression and never, ever, in any way, encompasses an idea or concept.

If Dark Eldar, for example, are protectable because they are 'spiky and evil' then any other prior existing work of art that is 'spiky and evil' is similarly protectable and Dark Eldar are therefore completely unoriginal and deserving of no protection whatsoever. That is what people on these boards have been saying for years now, and that is why people look at that Tau-esque CD art and call shenanigans. It is because the door swings both ways, and if GW wants to assert such a broad ownership as it has, such broad ownership applies equally to every other artists in the world, and GW would have no artwork to protect in the first place. But the world doesn't work like that. The Kroot are different from that MtG art. Both are unique pieces of artwork deserving of some limited measure of copyright protection that prevents people from making copies of that work of art.

Edit: Ninja'ed by an excellent post by weeble! Cheers to the "lawyers for good" among us

czakk wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
For a lawyer, inspiration is IP theft paying his lifestyle. So he tries to hunt down creative staff that uses inspiration by colleagues.

You forgot to mention that we also steal candy from children, kick puppies, and throw our recyclables into the trash.

Don't forget about clubbing the baby seals. Honestly how do you sleep at night

Thanks for that post weeble, but I'm not sure what you were getting at. Your post goes over similarities and disimilarities, and finishes with a comparison to the GW vs Chapterhouse case.
My postwas that I refuted his comments that they were similar enough for WotC to start a lawsuit over design similarities, and I wanted clarification if it was sarcasm that went over my head.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
I must admit, those MTG cards are VERY damning against GW's Kroot designs, and there is not a damn thing the white knights and apologists can say to dispute that.

If GW was only "inspired" by those cards then CHS's standalone models were just as much only "inspired" by GW's relative works.

I wonder now if WotC will go after GW and throw their own weight around, which I imagine is heavier.

I'm sorry, but is this sarcasm? Other than being emaciated I don't see much similarity there.
As for the album cover, it's pretty much just a similar helmet.
I also have a question about the final judgement- what exactly can it change from the jury verdict?

Was your comment, itself, sarcasm!?! If you actually look at the MtG cards you can see that the hair is similar in that it is swept back, and in two of the cards, clumped together (like kroot). The body poses even reflect the miniatures "body language". The weapons are similarly primitive and wrapped in cloth on certain areas. The facial shape is similar to kroot. The lack of clothing, beyond loin clothe, is also similar to kroot.

Those cards are more Kroot-like than not. To not see that is only admitting that your eye exam is seriously overdue. The last sentence was the only actual sarcasm in this posts non quoted areas. This poster is not responsible for quoted comments or the readers inability to correctly interpret what the poster typed.

Shepherd23 wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
I must admit, those MTG cards are VERY damning against GW's Kroot designs, and there is not a damn thing the white knights and apologists can say to dispute that.

If GW was only "inspired" by those cards then CHS's standalone models were just as much only "inspired" by GW's relative works.

I wonder now if WotC will go after GW and throw their own weight around, which I imagine is heavier.

I'm sorry, but is this sarcasm? Other than being emaciated I don't see much similarity there.
As for the album cover, it's pretty much just a similar helmet.
I also have a question about the final judgement- what exactly can it change from the jury verdict?

Was your comment, itself, sarcasm!?! If you actually look at the MtG cards you can see that the hair is similar in that it is swept back, and in two of the cards, clumped together (like kroot). The body poses even reflect the miniatures "body language". The weapons are similarly primitive and wrapped in cloth on certain areas. The facial shape is similar to kroot. The lack of clothing, beyond loin clothe, is also similar to kroot.

Those cards are more Kroot-like than not. To not see that is only admitting that your eye exam is seriously overdue. The last sentence was the only actual sarcasm in this posts non quoted areas. This poster is not responsible for quoted commenyts or the readers inability to correctly interpret what the poster typed.

It was not. In my opinion, I see few similarities between being emaciated and evil looking. Kroot are generally birdlike, with an obvious beak. They boh carry guns, but the mtg card lacks the blades and general shape of a kroot weapon. Also kroot artwork generally shows hem in forested areas vs swamps.
*edit- I hate autocorrect shenanigans

Shepherd23 wrote:
This poster is not responsible for quoted comments or the readers inability to correctly interpret what the poster typed.

You should put this disclaimer in your signature. From a Design Engineer's perspective, there are a lot of critical design aspects that are pretty damning. I don't want to drag this off-topic, but if someone else starts a thread on it, I'll do a full design study comparing the two.

Good plan. Enough with the MTG card/Kroot conversation.

Since my question was lost in the OT discussion above, I'll ask it again- What can the final verdict change in relation to this case? Can it completely disregard the jury's verdict? Award more-less damages? Just reiterate what was already said?

 RiTides wrote:

czakk wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
For a lawyer, inspiration is IP theft paying his lifestyle. So he tries to hunt down creative staff that uses inspiration by colleagues.

You forgot to mention that we also steal candy from children, kick puppies, and throw our recyclables into the trash.

Don't forget about clubbing the baby seals. Honestly how do you sleep at night

I will soon add this to my original post, thanks

And the left Nightstalker on the secons pic looks indeed almost exactly like a Kroot, esp. the face.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Since my question was lost in the OT discussion above, I'll ask it again- What can the final verdict change in relation to this case? Can it completely disregard the jury's verdict? Award more-less damages? Just reiterate what was already said?

Yes.

The trial judge has discretion to enter basically whatever final verdict he wants to, although he needs to have some basis on which to do so, e.g a finding that no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict of X. The appellate court has a bit more discretion because it can additionally correct an error made by the trial judge, and remand some or all claims fr a new trial. Technically, I suppose the trial judge could correct his wn error at this point, but that would be exceedingly odd.

On a practical level, it takes a lot to overturn a jury verdict, and mostly what you'd see do it is a finding of insufficient evidence, I.e no reasonable jury could have found the facts in this way because they had no facts on which to make that finding. For exa,ple, if I recall Chapterhouse's JMOL motion (and post trial motions will be a renewed, and possibly altered JMOL), CHS argued something about GW providing no evidence of likelihood of confusion. Czakk can probably quote the relevant parts. Presumably, the trial judge could agree with the defendant and find that for X claims, the plaintiff in fact did not provide sufficient evidence to meet its burden of poof, ergo a finding for the plaintiff on such claims could not be anything other than an error on the part of the jury.

My point with the Kroot thing was not really directed at you. The point about the Kroot (this is very minimal Janthkin) was merely to use that example as a way to demonstrate the type of arguments GW made to prove substantial similarity in its case against CHS. In other words, if you don't think the Kroot are similar to the MtG drawings, the arguments GW used to prove substantial similarity in the CHS case could have been made to prove substantial similarity between the MtG drawings and the Kroot.

People who favor GW tend to have rose tinted glasses. The CHS works are so clearly ripoffs of GW art, but when it comes to differences between GW work and other artwork, there's a huge world of very detailed differences. Generally speaking, GW itself falls victim to this distorted view of reality in which what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

GW and Chapterhouse still have trouble agreeing on the judgment.

406 Status Report:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.0.pdf

406 GW's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.1.pdf

406 CHS's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.2.pdf

czakk wrote:
GW and Chapterhouse still have trouble agreeing on the judgment.

406 Status Report:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.0.pdf

406 GW's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.1.pdf

406 CHS's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.2.pdf

At the risk of sounding as stupid as I may actually be, and for those that don't speak lawyerian, What?

From what my caveman like brain could tell it says CH was guilty of some, but not all charges brought by GDub, right?
Does that mean CH will just stop making what it was told did infringe on copyrighted material, and keep on keeping on with what didn't get called infringement?

Yes they'll have to stop selling infringing products.

The jist of those documents are that GW and CHS want court phrase it's judgement slightly differently. The first document is a status reprort about the differences and proposals to reconcile the two.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Yes they'll have to stop selling infringing products.

The jist of those documents are that GW and CHS want court phrase it's judgement slightly differently. The first document is a status reprort about the differences and proposals to reconcile the two.

Thank you!

czakk wrote:
GW and Chapterhouse still have trouble agreeing on the judgment.

406 Status Report:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.0.pdf

406 GW's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.1.pdf

406 CHS's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.2.pdf

I think those filings are in error. The text of the document is, as far as I can tell, exactly the same as that of document 401, and is consequently titled "Joint Status Report For Entry of Judgment" in the actual document, as opposed to "Joint Status Report Regarding Entry of Permanent Injunction," which is what the docket entry is labeled. I assume the proper status report should bear a corresponding title, yes?

Edit: Of course as soon as I post this it gets fixed. Document 407 has the proper documents for the "Joint Status Report Regarding Entry of Permanent Injunction."

Dang. Mr Keener's making me look like an ass by misfiling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.407.0.pdf

czakk wrote:
Dang. Mr Keener's making me look like an ass by misfiling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.407.0.pdf

Lol, maybe he's reading the forums. 'OH Crap! that czakk guy's links go to the totally wrong documents!'

You're welcome Mr. Keener. Should we send them a bill or something?

I'm sure it was the lawyers on the other side who alerted him first.

I love how GW objects to being reminded that they were penalized by the judge for falsifying stuff during discovery.

But that would make them look foolish and possibly immoral?

 skyth wrote:
I love how GW objects to being reminded that they were penalized by the judge for falsifying stuff during discovery.

Because, and this is the best bit, they just don't want to "complicate" the ruling. Really, they're just doing everyone a favor, trying to keep things simple, see?

I am confused, has there been a final decision?

 MRPYM wrote:
I am confused, has there been a final decision?

Not yet, this is more like a summary of possible appeals, and random anti-GW banter.

Well, there has been but the wording is currently being debated.

I could be wrong, but this is not the judge's final verdict, but CH an GW arguing over the jury's verdict, correct?

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 MRPYM wrote:
I am confused, has there been a final decision?

Not yet, this is more like a summary of possible appeals, and random anti-GW banter.

The current issue before the Court is permanent injunction. There is a hearing on Monday, and at the end of the day on Monday rule 50 and 59 motions are due, i.e. renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for a new trial.

Once judgment is final (and the parties are now disputing when the judgment 'becomes' final) the parties have a certain amount of time (I think 30 days) to file a notice of appeal. If no notice of appeal is filed by that time, there can be no appeal.

So, right now the Court needs to make a decision on what permanent injunctions to impose and the parties have 4 substantive disputes about that. Next the Court will take up any renewed JMOL motions. Later, the parties will need to file a notice of appeal if they intend to appeal.

That's what is going on right now.

so although the jury has given their verdict GW and CH are now arguing that their translations of that verdict shold be the ones that become the final judges verdict...

Pretty much. And when you see the variety of decisions it does give cause for thought.

For example, why can GW copyright a shoulder pad with skull on, but not a shoulder pad with arrow on? Both sides might want to contest such a point.

408, 409, 410 are up, lots of exhibits etc.... GWs JMOL and CHS's JMOL / request for new trial.

Link: http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html (scroll down to the bottom)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From Exhibit K, trial transcript: Mr. Merrit and Mr. Moskin.

10 Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth
11 spreads?
12 A. Well, obviously, the Internet is the big one today and
13 social media, but the Internet is probably the biggest single
14 way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate
15 with each other. And actually, you can't -- if you were to go
16 online and type Games Workshop, you would find a myriad of
17 forums and blogs and websites of our fans goobering about our
18 stuff, basically.
19 Q. Goobering?
20 A. Getting excited about.
21 Q. I don't know how to goober. I'm sorry.

Certainly if you type in Games Workshop Social Media you won't get anything from them

 Alfndrate wrote:
Certainly if you type in Games Workshop Social Media you won't get anything from them

There is that!

Some...interesting characterizations of their core group of fans in there...

We already knew this, but I think this is different testimony to that effect:

This is Ms. Stevenson

Q. Now, in your role at Games Workshop, have you done anything
6 to demonstrate potential confusion between the Games Workshop
7 and Chapterhouse products?
8 A. Yes, I have. So, I gave some images from the Chapterhouse
9 website off their products to our hobby team, who are the very
10 talented painters who painted the models on the board at the
11 front, and I asked them to take an equivalent Games Workshop kit
12 and to pose it in the same pose as the Chapterhouse product and
13 paint it using their color scheme to give a very visual
14 representation of whether people could be confused.

15 Q. Let's look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 1022 at Page 2. What are
16 we looking at here?
17 A. This is a chart that I had put together. As I said, the
18 images on the left-hand side are the Chapterhouse images from
19 their website, and on the right-hand is a Games Workshop model
20 that has been prepared using an Eldar Farseer kit, as you can
21 see, it says. And it has been posed and painted using entirely
22 Games Workshop parts, and that is all one kit, painted in their
23 color scheme to show how easy it would be to be confused once
24 you've got a final finished product.

Q So, Ms. Stevenson, what you are telling us that in the
five years that you have been aware of Mr. Villacci and
Chapterhouse Studios, that you have received these three
emails that you think are evidence of confusion, is that
right?
A Yes, and they're all prior to his issuing the court
proceedings.
Q And what is the relevance of that?
A Well, the public knowledge afterwards would mean that
people wouldn't be confused.
Q So the litigation itself has mitigated any likelihood of
confusion; is that fair to say?

Ouch. Heh.

Yeah, I love that.

"This is how easy it would be for the ordinary person to be confused... if we go out of our way to make things as confusing as possible for them! See? SEE?!?"

Interesting little tidbit, don't think it went anywhere, but interesting:

Q. Turning to the next page of the same exhibit, PX435, what's
7 at the bottom of the web page?
8 A. A disclaimer.
9 Q. And what's the first line say?
10 A. "This website is completely unofficial and in no way
11 endorsed by Games Workshop Limited."
12 Q. Why did you put that on there?
13 A. We didn't want to get in legal trouble with Games Workshop.
14 So, besides going to an attorney and finding out what he told
15 us, we went to the Games Workshop --
16 MR. MOSKIN: Objection, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Basis?
18 MR. MOSKIN: There's been no defense in this case of --
19 THE COURT: I'll tell you what. Here's what we're
20 going to do. We're going to need to discuss this a little bit...

Mr Brewster's testimony around page 45 ish is interesting. Seems like they got an expert in us military heraldry to testify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q Mr. Brewster, we've reviewed a number of symbols from
various resource books. Are these symbols that you used in
forming your opinion in this case?
A Yes.
Q And can you recap for the jury what your main conclusion
is?
A Well, I again reviewed the materials presented and found
that particular symbols that are used by Games Workshop to
create insignia are also symbols that are found in use by the United States military for their insignias and heraldic unit
designators.
MS. GOLINVEAUX: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Keener.
CROSS EXAMINATION

Automatically Appended Next Post:

From the Goodwin cross:

A. The Imperium is a civilization or the remnants of one.
2 Q. Fine. And so, the Imperium, the civilization, that's the
3 setting in which this game is to take place; is that right?
4 A. Yep.
5 Q. And that game is an amalgamation of so many ideas that were
6 floating around, taken from sources like 2000 AD, right? Isn't
7 that true?
8 A. That just doesn't finish off the sentence, does it?
9 Q. Well, let's look at the rest of the sentence. Taken from
10 2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put
11 into a big pot and regurgitated by us. Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Isn't that what Games Workshop did?
14 A. That's a very, very simplistic reading of it, yes.
15 Q. And that's in The Art of Warhammer book, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. ALY: No further questions

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh, I wonder what this was about (well something to do with an ebay seller in france, but...):

THE COURT: Have you lived in France?
MR. MOSKIN: I'm sorry. No, I haven't. So maybe --
THE COURT: I have.
MR. MOSKIN: -- that's why I made such a naive
comment.

Merrett Direct:

[Mr. Merrett] So, we don't mass market advertise anything. We rely on what we call word of mouth...

Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth spreads?

[Mr. Merrett] the Internet is probably the biggest single way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate with each other...

Q. Can you describe some of these forums, the names of them?

[Mr. Merrett] Oh, Lord. Well, off the top of my list, one's like Dakka Dakka...

So, Games Workshop does no mass marketing, and in fact relies on word of mouth in which the internet is "the biggest single way" that Games Workshop's customers communicate, such as on sites like Dakka Dakka, which is on the "top of [Merrett's] list."

Games Workshop allows its customers to control the image of Games Workshop, with threads like this one on Dakka Dakka being a prime example of Games Workshop's 'nerdy, geeky customers goobering about its products'.

weeble1000 wrote:
Merrett Direct:

[Mr. Merrett] So, we don't mass market advertise anything. We rely on what we call word of mouth...

Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth spreads?

[Mr. Merrett] the Internet is probably the biggest single way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate with each other...

Q. Can you describe some of these forums, the names of them?

[Mr. Merrett] Oh, Lord. Well, off the top of my list, one's like Dakka Dakka...

So, Games Workshop does no mass marketing, and in fact relies on word of mouth in which the internet is "the biggest single way" that Games Workshop's customers communicate, such as on sites like Dakka Dakka.

We allow our customers to control the image of Games Workshop, with threads like this one on Dakka Dakka being a prime example of out 'nerdy, geeky customers goobering about our products'.

That picture just made my day.

Also, can someone recap which side was asking for a retrial? I assume GW.

Merrett Cross:

[Ms. Hartzell] But do you have knowledge what they referred to?

[Mr. Merrett] Well, they didn't refer to anything. What we did is we
generated concept drawings, and the guys that were working on
the project brainstormed concepts of -- for the Tau idea.

[Ms. Hartzell] And none of them had ever seen a robot?

[Mr. Merrett] Well, that's preposterous to suggest, isn't it?

[Ms. Hartzell] It is.

[Mr. Merrett] Yeah, of course it is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Merrett:

But that's not the way that we work at Games Workshop. We don't expect our designers to use sources. We expect them to use Games Workshop's resources to generate all that work.

Mr. Naismith (designer of the original Space Marine)

...that came from us having our background in making historical models, because the historical war gaming market and sculpting for that meant that we had a depth of knowledge on military costume across all these different periods that I referred to earlier, and we were able to draw on that resource of knowledge of military history and apply it to the models

Mr. Blanche

Q. And so, is heraldry also a point of reference for the Warhammer 40K work?

[Mr. Blanche] Yes.

Q. And can you describe how?

[Mr. Blanche] Particularly Space Marines and their color schemes and their symbols on their shoulder pads, et cetera, that would be a strong part of their specific chapter heraldry.

Mr. Goodwin

Q. Well, let's look at the rest of the sentence. Taken from 2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put into a big pot and regurgitated by us. Do you see that?

[Mr. Goodwin] Yes.

Q. Isn't that what Games Workshop did?

[Mr. Goodwin] That's a very, very simplistic reading of it, yes.

Q. And that's in The Art of Warhammer book, right?

[Mr. Goodwin] Yes.

 Aerethan wrote:

That picture just made my day.

Also, can someone recap which side was asking for a retrial? I assume GW.

CHS, new trial on certain aspects. I've attached the memorandum to this post. They want either a JMOL (change the jury's verdict) or a new trial on the issues they identify.

GW same story, still reading their document.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If the Court decides not to enter judgment as a matter of law for Chapterhouse, a new trial
is warranted on the issues above. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). When the Court addresses a request for a new trial, it may “get a general sense of the weight of the evidence, assessing the credibility
of the witnesses and the comparative strength of the facts put forth at trial.” Mejia v. Cook
County, Ill., 650 F.3d 631, 633 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court may also consider “anything else
which justice requires” when it assesses whether to grant a new trial. Whitehead v. Bond, 782 F.
Supp.2d 685, 691 (N.D. Ill. 2011). A new trial should be granted if the verdict is against the
“manifest weight of the evidence.” Mejia, 650 F.3d at 633.
Here, the jury’s verdict—to the extent it was against Chapterhouse—is against the weight
of the proffered evidence for the reasons stated above. And “a motion for a new trial may be
granted even if a motion for judgment as a matter of law must be denied.” Id. at 634.
Because a court may grant a new trial on “all or some of the issues” at hand (see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e)) (emphasis added), the scope of the new trial should be limited to the issues raised
in this motion and those claims identified in the Appendix.

The jury's decisions just don't have logic or consistency. Whether the decision goes in the favour of GW or CHS, that some generic stuff on shoulder pads infringed and some did not, just doesn't make sense. The jury should show consistency, the result of the jury was that they gave wins to both sides somewhat arbitrarily rather than following a pattern.

In reading those documents you can see two distinct styles of writing which I find quite interesting. The CHS is broken down into easily readable points with immediate support and is very clear and concise in the logical path it is trying to take its reader. Not so much the other one which turns in a wall of text.

I have a feeling that the judge isn't going to waste time with a new trial but make corrections to the anomolies the jury came out with. I think that GW are in for one horrendous spanking - especially bring up Grindley yet again.

I agree. It's impossible to read the evidence and make any sense of the overall balance of the verdicts.

Merrett Cross:

[Ms. Hartzell] Do you recall testifying about this product?

[Mr. Merrett] Yes.

[Ms. Hartzell] And you testified that it was a wholly original Games Workshop design?

[Mr. Merrett] Wholly original Games Workshop idea, and therefore that's a copy of a Games Workshop idea, and the expression of the idea is illustrated opposite.

[Ms. Hartzell] On the right-hand side?

[Mr. Merrett] Yes.

In other words, Mr. Merrett knows that an idea is different from an expression. He identified the Games Workshop work as an expression of the idea, and rather than state that the accused product was a copy of the expression, he said it was a copy of the idea.

weeble1000 wrote:
Merrett Cross:

[Ms. Hartzell] Do you recall testifying about this product?

[Mr. Merrett] Yes.

[Ms. Hartzell] And you testified that it was a wholly original Games Workshop design?

[Mr. Merrett] Wholly original Games Workshop idea, and therefore that's a copy of a Games Workshop idea, and the expression of the idea is illustrated opposite.

[Ms. Hartzell] On the right-hand side?

[Mr. Merrett] Yes.

In other words, Mr. Merrett knows that an idea is different from an expression. He identified the Games Workshop work as an expression of the idea, and rather than state that the accused product was a copy of the expression, he said it was a copy of the idea.

That is quite damning against the relevant copyright claims.

The judge must have a strictly-enforced page limit on such motions; CH's attorneys had to pack a lot of law into 15 pages, and I think their arguments suffer a bit on some of the points they apparently deemed less important/less likely to succeed.

But they fit them all in, so they're all available for appellate consideration; that's the important thing!

Local rules have briefs limited to 15 pages.

LR 7.1. Briefs: Page Limit

Neither a brief in support of or in opposition to any motion nor objections to a report and recommendation or order of a magistrate judge or special master shall exceed 15 pages without prior approval of the court. Briefs that exceed the 15 page limit must have a table of contents with the pages noted and a table of cases. Any brief or objection that does not comply with this rule shall be filed subject to being stricken by the court.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Are we heading back to Judge Gilbert for another settlement conference? Should go smoothly

07/16/2013 411 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: settlement conference on post judgment matters.(pjg, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 07/16/2013)

I guess somebody rolled a 6 to see if the game continued.

On Topic though, did the Jurors throw darts at the verdict sheets?

I cannot follow through any pattern or 'logic tree' on their awards of infringement/non-infringement decisions. Also, I thought they had to show how they came to the conclusion of the damage award? I'm sure I saw that in the instructions.

Cheers

Andrew

Is it just me or does the GW brief seem like its reaching?

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it just me or does the GW brief seem like its reaching?

Lets be honest gw's entire case could be described as reaching.

Most of the time, I assume the judge is going to uphold the jury verdict. To claim that 'no reasonable jury could believe x', I think precedent is that you need pretty clear evidence that the jury is not being reasonable rather than you just made your case poorly.

However, I see CHS 'no evidence of actual confusion' to be a pretty strong argument. If GW's only witness on that issue affirmed there was no likelihood of confusion and the jury did not take that part of the law into consideration, that would be very strong grounds for overturning and consistent with the few other times I have heard of jury verdicts being overturned.

I think both parties have reason to appeal on the basis of the jury being inconsistent and illogical. It helps no one to not lay down where GW's rights end. I think GW were lucky to win what they did but GW seem to expect to always get their way so CHS fighting back and winning anything must really stick in their craw.

weeble1000 wrote:
[Mr. Merrett] So, we don't mass market advertise anything. We rely on what we call word of mouth...

Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth spreads?

[Mr. Merrett] the Internet is probably the biggest single way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate with each other...

Q. Can you describe some of these forums, the names of them?

[Mr. Merrett] Oh, Lord. Well, off the top of my list, one's like Dakka Dakka...

Fantastic

If they're relying on word of mouth via independent forums, particularly this one, they're in for a rude awaking on what that word of mouth actually says, though

It's particularly amusing given their long-running crusade against the internet... or at least those parts of it that involve themselves with GW's IP.

So their primary source of advertising is word of mouth on the internet... but they do everything they can to quash that.

That's got to be good for business.

lets also not forget how grateful they are to all these sites advertising them for free with their occasional C&D letters, or complains to Google.

I would assume that the chances of appeal on either side are rather slim. There is not enough money involved in the case to take more time in court. Further, the pro bono legal team already made a big announcement on their win. You do not think that they would make such a press release if they thought that it would be overruled on appeal. Lastly, the case went just as predicted by the original judge, both sides will get some wins and some losses and both companies will survive and continue to produce miniatures.

It will be interesting to see GW's legal strategy after this case is settled. I suspect that they will be much more hesitant to go to court.

It seems unlikely that things would go GW's way on appeal, but that should merely encourage the pro bono defence team to increase the size of their victory.

Does anyone have a link of grindleys testimony during the trial?

 spaceelf wrote:
I would assume that the chances of appeal on either side are rather slim. There is not enough money involved in the case to take more time in court. Further, the pro bono legal team already made a big announcement on their win. You do not think that they would make such a press release if they thought that it would be overruled on appeal. Lastly, the case went just as predicted by the original judge, both sides will get some wins and some losses and both companies will survive and continue to produce miniatures.

It will be interesting to see GW's legal strategy after this case is settled. I suspect that they will be much more hesitant to go to court.

It has been confirmed other legal firm are willing to take on the appeal pro-bono, do to the far reaching impact this case will have.

Noir wrote:

 spaceelf wrote:
I would assume that the chances of appeal on either side are rather slim. There is not enough money involved in the case to take more time in court. Further, the pro bono legal team already made a big announcement on their win. You do not think that they would make such a press release if they thought that it would be overruled on appeal. Lastly, the case went just as predicted by the original judge, both sides will get some wins and some losses and both companies will survive and continue to produce miniatures.

It will be interesting to see GW's legal strategy after this case is settled. I suspect that they will be much more hesitant to go to court.

It has been confirmed other legal firm are willing to take on the appeal pro-bono, do to the far reaching impact this case will have.

Heh heh heh. I am so enjoying all of this.

Noir wrote:
It has been confirmed other legal firm are willing to take on the appeal pro-bono, do to the far reaching impact this case will have.

Whoa! Which firm?

There is a queue

 Kroothawk wrote:
There is a queue

I wonder, if this does go to appeal, how many of those firms or their clients might write amicus briefs explaining how important this case's precedents might be to IP law as a whole.

Saldiven wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
There is a queue

I wonder, if this does go to appeal, how many of those firms or their clients might write amicus briefs explaining how important this case's precedents might be to IP law as a whole.

Same here - particularly in the parts of the tech industry that attempt to strangle competition through aggressive, IP-related litigation. Not to mention what it could mean to literary IP! If nothing else, it certainly has the potential to lob an angry tabby into a nigh-flightless cluster of overweight pigeons.

Noir wrote:

 spaceelf wrote:
I would assume that the chances of appeal on either side are rather slim. There is not enough money involved in the case to take more time in court. Further, the pro bono legal team already made a big announcement on their win. You do not think that they would make such a press release if they thought that it would be overruled on appeal. Lastly, the case went just as predicted by the original judge, both sides will get some wins and some losses and both companies will survive and continue to produce miniatures.

It will be interesting to see GW's legal strategy after this case is settled. I suspect that they will be much more hesitant to go to court.

It has been confirmed other legal firm are willing to take on the appeal pro-bono, do to the far reaching impact this case will have.

Confirmed where? Don't be a tease

Mythal wrote:
If nothing else, it certainly has the potential to lob an angry tabby into a nigh-flightless cluster of overweight pigeons.

Well done, there

CHS has filed a bill of costs to be taxed by the clerk*. These aren't legal fees, these are everyday expenses and the cost of paying for witnesses airplane tickets / hotel rooms during trial. They don't even represent the full range of disbursements, just the ones that are taxable. CHS seems to be dead serious about recovering costs from GW.

*Taxation of costs is a term of art that refers to having a magistrate / registrar or clerk of court review a detailed bill of legal costs to determine whether or not they are appropriate and whether they can be executed against someone. Confusing name, doesn't have anything to do with income tax. It's to protect against lawyers padding the bill or charging for services that weren't actually rendered etc... Sometimes the client will ask to have a bill taxed (if they disagree with the fees they are being charged) and sometimes you get a bill taxed when the other party is forced to pay your legal fees or disbursements.



For folks wondering how expensive litigation is, the bill for printing and photo copies alone is $112k. This is (in part) why news of a 25k judgment was viewed as a drop in the ocean. 25k is a lot of money for a business, but in litigation it is peanuts, they spent more on printer toner and staples.


The exhibits document is 80 pages of receipts


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fun little entry:


3/7/2013 16559 Weidner, Lauren B. 999997 3116 Color Copies $18,717.60 color_print Chicago

Yes, 18k on a single print job.

And here's one that is over 25k:

5/22/2013 16559 Weidner, Lauren B. 999997 3116 Color Copies $26,897.60 email_print Chicago








Automatically Appended Next Post:




Also, there is a minute entry from Judge Gilbert:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: Telephone status hearing held with counsel for both parties concerning the most recent settlement referral.

The Court's judicial assistant gave counsel dates the Court has available for a settlement conference and the parties will promptly confirm one of those dates and dates for the exchange of settlement letters so that the Court has letters from both parties at least a week before the settlement conference.

As discussed on the telephone call, Plaintiff will tender a settlement letter first.

The parties and counsel shall familiarize themselves with the Court's Standing Order for Settlement Conference available on the Court's webpage at www.ilnd.uscourts/Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert.

In light of this telephonic conference, the status hearing set for 7/24/13 is stricken with no appearance necessary. Mailed notice (mr, ) (Entered: 07/18/2013)

czakk wrote:
the bill for printing and photo copies alone is $112k.

This tells me I'm completely in the wrong business.... I knew there was a ton of paperwork involved, but good lord. With those type of prices I think I need to open up a chain of copy centers.

And this is in the 'paperless office' of the future.

I wonder if Judge Gilbert is tempted to tell the litigants, "I told you so."

I wonder if Judge Gilbert has ever been tempted to examine this "Dakka dakka website" to see what people are saying about GW and CH???



Hey Judge tell them "I told you so"

Another Minute entry:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: Settlement Conference set for 9/16/13 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff shall tender its settlement letter to Defendant with a copy to chambers on or before 8/30/13. Defendant shall tender its response to Plaintiff with a copy to chambers on or before 9/9/13. Mailed notice (mr, ) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

If this is anything like the mandatory settlement conferences up here nothing will actually be settled. Just a repeat of what happened at the beginning of the case.

czakk wrote:
Another Minute entry:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: Settlement Conference set for 9/16/13 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff shall tender its settlement letter to Defendant with a copy to chambers on or before 8/30/13. Defendant shall tender its response to Plaintiff with a copy to chambers on or before 9/9/13. Mailed notice (mr, ) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

If this is anything like the mandatory settlement conferences up here nothing will actually be settled. Just a repeat of what happened at the beginning of the case.

For some reason I just have a mental image of GW management rolling on the floor screaming "make it stop, make it stop". I bet they never thought that this would be going on for so long and suck up so much time. I am also waiting for head of GW legal to announce she is leaving to spend more time with her family after such a poorly orchestrated legal strategy that has costs them so much money and sucked up so much management time.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
For some reason I just have a mental image of GW management rolling on the floor screaming "make it stop, make it stop". I bet they never thought that this would be going on for so long and suck up so much time. I am also waiting for head of GW legal to announce she is leaving to spend more time with her family after such a poorly orchestrated legal strategy that has costs them so much money and sucked up so much management time.

I think it is pretty clear that Games Workshop is fairly inexperienced when it comes to litigation. I haven't tracked down all of the actual lawsuits in which GW is a party in the US, but a basic PACER search through the federal courts only pulls up a handful, and I don't think any of them actually went through to trial, other than the Chapterhouse case.

People inexperienced with such lawsuits seemed surprised that the lawsuit went soooo long, and now that there is a jury verdict those same people seem surprised that it still isn't over. If the parties don't settle out, the whole thing could go on longer still if either party decides to appeal, and I believe Chapterhouse Studios has expressed an intention to appeal.

The sad part is that this whole thing could go away if the parties would settle the dispute.

This is what the owner of CHS said about settlement on BOLS:

CHS made numerous attempts to give GW a way out without going to courts, with a fair settlement in mind for both sides for the whole 2.5 years of the case, yet they never tried to have a reasonable settlement (their offer was go away and die and not make anything that is compatible with our products at all).

GW did make a settlement offer 1 month before the trial (up till that point they had no interest at all in settling besides stop everything you do and go away).

Which of course reminds me of what Judge Gilbert said way back in September of 2011:

THE COURT: And so let's say for the sake of argument and only for the sake of argument and not as any finding or anything else that for at least some of your items you're going to be able to show they're substantially similar and you're going to be able to put together whatever circumstantial or even direct evidence in terms of the types of things you're asking for from the defendant of copying, okay? And for others it's going to be a little bit dicier. You're not going to be able to show that they're that similar and you're not going to be able to -- and maybe the defendant is going to be able to articulate from whatever diaries he has or whatever that he came up with the Shakespeare sonnet pretty much on his own and it's going to be a bit of a reach. But let say you're going to win on some of this stuff after you go through all your discovery. What then? If Games Workshop Limited's goal is to put Chapterhouse Studios out of business, a death knell, cease and desist, go away, die, and pay us whatever you can of our attorneys' fees, then you're right, there is no basis to sit down and settle this case. However, if you would like to work out some agreement with Chapterhouse Studios, and I haven't yet heard whether Chapterhouse is willing to do that, short of "We'll go away roll up and die," but that allows both of you to go on and attempt to continue to operate in the areas, the space that you're operating in in some way without one or the other having to give up, in the world I live that's called a settlement, right?

Now the parties are going to be right back in front of Judge Gilbert again, only this time, it is a plain fact that as of right now Chapterhouse Studios is allowed to sell more than 100 products Games Workshop accused of infringement and is able to use dozens of asserted marks to advertise its products.

Which reminds me of another thing Judge Gilbert said:

I mean, I will tell you I had a trademark case last, a couple weeks ago, maybe a month ago now, that was very -- it was also a zero sum game, it was very hotly fought. The principals came in, the settlement discussion for hours was very hot, but in sitting with both parties I learned that the principals really had a lot of animosity against each other because of some prelitigation telephone calls that were had and things that were said on those calls. And one of the principals took it upon himself to say to the other principal, "I'm sorry. I'm sorry about how I reacted when we had a phone call. I'm sorry for saying that I was going to bury you, that I was going to put you out of business, that this was going to cost you too much and you could not fight us. And I have respect for your business, your plan, your model and I would like to try and resolve this." The case got resolved.

Given the jury verdict and rulings by the court, is Games Workshop going to be willing to say, "I'm sorry for saying that I was going to bury you, that I was going to put you out of business, that this was going to cost you too much and you could not fight us. And I have respect for your business, your plan, your model and I would like to try and resolve this." If Games Workshop is not willing to say that, well, in the words of Judge Gilbert:

So defendant is going to get some ruling someplace from Judge Kennelly if this goes all the way through that you don't have any protectable interest in certain of your works. You know, there may be some figures, there may be some other things if you get into a battle on this, that lo and behold Chapterhouse, which has a profitable business on this, there is going to be a ruling on the record public in federal district court in Chicago that you don't have rights to certain things that you're now asserting rights in.

Judge Kennelly still hasn't ruled on those JMOL motions.

This has been a very good read. I wonder if it will be another 2 years before all the appeals are out of the way.....

 warriorpriest wrote:
This has been a very good read. I wonder if it will be another 2 years before all the appeals are out of the way.....

The Microsoft/Apple GUI case went somewhere around 10 years, and in the end all that happened was Microsoft settled with Apple to buy a large chunk of Apple stock. Without a settlement, they normally run several years and a few more for the appeals process to run (whether itnis dealing with the claims themselves or other parts of the case...who may or may not be stuck with how much of the bill for example).

GW has submitted its costs motion. $177k

GW made a mention of sorts about intellectual property in their financials.

GW wrote:
Breach of intellectual property (IP) and counterfeit products. The risk is that we lose control of our IP and thus other people can take our market. There are two ways we mitigate this risk: product quality and IP protection. Product quality is the best defence. Our miniatures are of extraordinary detail and have very high costs associated with their production. We do the tooling and manufacturing here in Nottingham to ensure that quality. As it happens, even if we wanted to tool or manufacture elsewhere, we have never found anyone who can deliver the quality we need at the price we pay. In order to be able to duplicate that quality requires a level of capital investment that no one has, as yet, even tried to emulate. This also deals with the risk of counterfeit products.The few that are made are of poor quality and do not appeal to our customers.
Should that change, or we meet intransigent small infringers, we have copyright, trademark and passing off law to protect our imagery and we have never been shy of using legal redress if needed. Our legal department deals with dozens of cases each year with satisfactory results.
The scale upon which we do business is the biggest defence against this threat. The cases we deal with (and there are dozens each year) are nearly all single individuals or small businesses who ‘cease and desist’ as soon as they get the letter. Those who don’t should be stopped more because we need to ensure everyone knows we are serious about defending our IP rather than because of the immediate threat of damage to our profits.

You would never know that they just spent seven figures losing 75% of the counts in a suit over their IP.

If you read Mr Keener's memorandum, he makes it clear that their victories were "multitude".

Was the result against Chapterhouse 'satisfactory'?


Also their comment about how they deliver the best and counterfeiters are marked by poorer quality. The sad thing is that some counterfeiters are offering more reliability than what Finecast and Forgeworld deliver. People don't often like to talk about buying counterfeit miniatures or admit they have, but it's not uncommon among those that have to say they're better than GW.

Trasvi wrote:
GW made a mention of sorts about intellectual property in their financials.

GW wrote:
Our legal department deals with dozens of cases each year with satisfactory results.
The scale upon which we do business is the biggest defence against this threat. The cases we deal with (and there are dozens each year) are nearly all single individuals or small businesses who ‘cease and desist’ as soon as they get the letter. Those who don’t should be stopped more because we need to ensure everyone knows we are serious about defending our IP rather than because of the immediate threat of damage to our profits.

HAHAHA! That's awesome! Wow, this is GREAT NEWS!

Hey, guess what GW investors, TAKE A LOOK! So, GW didn't "stop" Chapterhouse Studios, and communicated only that they know how to spend seven figures restricting their claimed intellectual property rights, encouraging the expansion of the third party accessory market, and proving that they can't litigate themselves out of a paper bag. Holy crap.

If you're going to spin this catastrophe GW, try harder, 'cause that aint it.

Trasvi wrote:
GW made a mention of sorts about intellectual property in their financials.

GW wrote:
Breach of intellectual property (IP) and counterfeit products. The risk is that we lose control of our IP and thus other people can take our market. There are two ways we mitigate this risk: product quality and IP protection. Product quality is the best defence. Our miniatures are of extraordinary detail and have very high costs associated with their production. We do the tooling and manufacturing here in Nottingham to ensure that quality. As it happens, even if we wanted to tool or manufacture elsewhere, we have never found anyone who can deliver the quality we need at the price we pay. In order to be able to duplicate that quality requires a level of capital investment that no one has, as yet, even tried to emulate. This also deals with the risk of counterfeit products.The few that are made are of poor quality and do not appeal to our customers.
Should that change, or we meet intransigent small infringers, we have copyright, trademark and passing off law to protect our imagery and we have never been shy of using legal redress if needed. Our legal department deals with dozens of cases each year with satisfactory results.
The scale upon which we do business is the biggest defence against this threat. The cases we deal with (and there are dozens each year) are nearly all single individuals or small businesses who ‘cease and desist’ as soon as they get the letter. Those who don’t should be stopped more because we need to ensure everyone knows we are serious about defending our IP rather than because of the immediate threat of damage to our profits.

You would never know that they just spent seven figures losing 75% of the counts in a suit over their IP.

So finecast didn't happen, and we didn't need to sue chapterhouse because our customers won't buy their products. It's all been a bad dream

GW wrote:
Should that change, or we meet intransigent small infringers, we have copyright, trademark and passing off law to protect our imagery and we have never been shy of using legal redress if needed. Our legal department deals with dozens of cases each year with satisfactory results.
The scale upon which we do business is the biggest defence against this threat. The cases we deal with (and there are dozens each year) are nearly all single individuals or small businesses who ‘cease and desist’ as soon as they get the letter. Those who don’t should be stopped more because we need to ensure everyone knows we are serious about defending our IP rather than because of the immediate threat of damage to our profits.

Translation: "We are an IP bully."

GW wrote:The risk is that we lose control of our IP and thus other people can take our market.

No, that's not the risk of someone using your IP. That's your misunderstanding of what its original intent was.

weeble1000 wrote:
Hey, guess what GW investors, TAKE A LOOK! So, GW didn't "stop" Chapterhouse Studios, and communicated only that they know how to spend seven figures restricting their claimed intellectual property rights, encouraging the expansion of the third party accessory market, and proving that they can't litigate themselves out of a paper bag. Holy crap.

If you're going to spin this catastrophe GW, try harder, 'cause that aint it.

For some reason, I read this post in a strong accent, especially the "Hooooooooo-Ly Crap" part

GW wrote:As it happens, even if we wanted to tool or manufacture elsewhere, we have never found anyone who can deliver the quality we need at the price we pay. In order to be able to duplicate that quality requires a level of capital investment that no one has, as yet, even tried to emulate.

Meaning they can't find people to make the stuff for less than peanuts? I think their withdrawal from China had much more to do with excess product sneaking out of warehouses and into secondary channels rather than how much you have to pay Chinese (or Indian workers) I don't think people in the UK are willing to work for 45 cents an hour. But the trade off is they can enforce better internal security in the UK.

Also in regard to investments in plastic it seems to me that Dreamforge and Wargames Factory are certainly attempting to break through that barrier. They might not be there yet in terms of offering a huge expansive range but the quality is there depending on which kits you look at. The quality of Dreamforge's stuff in particular supasses a lot of what GW sells. GW always likes to keep their head in the sand and shovels a load of manure down their investors throats in these reports, but sooner or later they'll realize that saying "La La La I can't hear you!" isn't a viable way to dealing with losing ground to the rest of the gaming industry.

 RiTides wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Hey, guess what GW investors, TAKE A LOOK! So, GW didn't "stop" Chapterhouse Studios, and communicated only that they know how to spend seven figures restricting their claimed intellectual property rights, encouraging the expansion of the third party accessory market, and proving that they can't litigate themselves out of a paper bag. Holy crap.

If you're going to spin this catastrophe GW, try harder, 'cause that aint it.

For some reason, I read this post in a strong accent, especially the "Hooooooooo-Ly Crap" part

I may have blurted it out in a strong accent when I read that in the report. That is a crazy thing to put in the report. First of all, it tells investors that the company is willing to spend money litigating when the company's profits are not impacted. Second, it communicates that the company does not actually have a decent handle on what "IP" means. Third, it communicates that the company's litigation department does little else other than bully individuals and small businesses. Fourth, and worst of all, for anyone who even takes a modicum of effort to look into Games Workshop's history of litigation, the statement seems like a half-arsed spin job at best, and at worst, an attempt to gloss over and conceal a spectacularly expensive failure to successfully enforce the company's alleged "IP."

The first time, I repeat first time that Games Workshop sued an "intransigent small infringer," it provoked a years long, incredibly expensive period of litigation against multiple top US law firms working pro bono, probably because GW's legal team bullies individuals and small companies who have no impact on Games Workshop's profits.

Do we know if the shareholders, the big players, actually know what a farce this case was for GW?

 Wolfstan wrote:
Do we know if the shareholders, the big players, actually know what a farce this case was for GW?

Who knows, quote from annual report

"We have also had a shift in the balance of our owners. For three entirely different reasons each of our largest holders has done some selling. "

 loki old fart wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Do we know if the shareholders, the big players, actually know what a farce this case was for GW?

Who knows, quote from annual report

"We have also had a shift in the balance of our owners. For three entirely different reasons each of our largest holders has done some selling. "

How much and who is buying, is what i would like to know.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Do we know if the shareholders, the big players, actually know what a farce this case was for GW?

Who knows, quote from annual report

"We have also had a shift in the balance of our owners. For three entirely different reasons each of our largest holders has done some selling. "

How much and who is buying, is what i would like to know.

Yes, but why is also a good question.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Do we know if the shareholders, the big players, actually know what a farce this case was for GW?

Who knows, quote from annual report

"We have also had a shift in the balance of our owners. For three entirely different reasons each of our largest holders has done some selling. "

being a publicly traded company I would assume it wouldnt be to hard to determine the who and how much

czakk wrote:
If you read Mr Keener's memorandum, he makes it clear that their victories were "multitude".

If by "multitude," he means that they won on more than one count, then sure, they certainly did!

 Guildsman wrote:

czakk wrote:
If you read Mr Keener's memorandum, he makes it clear that their victories were "multitude".

If by "multitude," he means that they won on more than one count, then sure, they certainly did!

To be fair, Games Workshop won on many claims, but objectively, when considered within the context of the litigation as a whole, the plaintiff prevailed on only roughly 25% of asserted claims. Also, it is important to note that having a large number of affirmative defenses dismissed is vastly different from a plaintiff's claims being dismissed with prejudice. A plaintiff does not "prevail" when an affirmative defense is dropped or dismissed, as it is the plaintiff that bears the burden of proving a claim in the first instance. Indeed, a defendant need not even articulate a defense beyond denying liability. A plaintiff only prevails when one finds liability. That a Federal Judge decided to table the question of Games Workshop defrauding the US Copyright Office, for example, did not in any way mean that Games Workshop prevailed on any claim, merely that Games Workshop was not barred from relief with respect to certain claims.

Surviving to trial does not mean that the plaintiff "won" on a particular claim. But to the contrary, when a claim is dismissed, and in particular when a claim is dismissed with prejudice, the plaintiff is not only barred from relief in the current litigation, but barred from articulating such a claim in the future. Consequently, the defendant simply cannot be liable with respect to that claim, and thus the plaintiff cannot possibly prevail. The Court dismissed numerous of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. This is a ballpark, but I believe more claims of copyright infringement were dismissed with prejudice by the Court than the plaintiff prevailed on at trial.

Among software development issues that sounds like a "don't do that" bug or "Chair-to-keyboard-interface" issue.

I expect more of day one employees.

Kinda funny.
Uh-oh funny.
A "that milk smells funny" kind of way more than a "that made me laugh" kind of way.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Guildsman wrote:

czakk wrote:
If you read Mr Keener's memorandum, he makes it clear that their victories were "multitude".

If by "multitude," he means that they won on more than one count, then sure, they certainly did!

To be fair, Games Workshop won on many claims, but objectively, when considered within the context of the litigation as a whole, the plaintiff prevailed on only roughly 25% of asserted claims. Also, it is important to note that having a large number of affirmative defenses dismissed is vastly different from a plaintiff's claims being dismissed with prejudice. A plaintiff does not "prevail" when an affirmative defense is dropped or dismissed, as it is the plaintiff that bears the burden of proving a claim in the first instance. Indeed, a defendant need not even articulate a defense beyond denying liability. A plaintiff only prevails when one finds liability. That a Federal Judge decided to table the question of Games Workshop defrauding the US Copyright Office, for example, did not in any way mean that Games Workshop prevailed on any claim, merely that Games Workshop was not barred from relief with respect to certain claims.

Surviving to trial does not mean that the plaintiff "won" on a particular claim. But to the contrary, when a claim is dismissed, and in particular when a claim is dismissed with prejudice, the plaintiff is not only barred from relief in the current litigation, but barred from articulating such a claim in the future. Consequently, the defendant simply cannot be liable with respect to that claim, and thus the plaintiff cannot possibly prevail. The Court dismissed numerous of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. This is a ballpark, but I believe more claims of copyright infringement were dismissed with prejudice by the Court than the plaintiff prevailed on at trial.

F&L's pleading style seems to be to add a little pizzazz similar to say Boies Schiller & Flexner. Overstate the case a little and ask for the stars and hope the judge settles in the middle and gives you the moon.


Objectively this costs motion has the potential to be very interesting. On the one hand you have a rule about prevailing parties being entitled to costs - and GW prevailed on some of their claims. On the other hand, looking at what they won, vs what they claimed is it fair to award them all (or any) of their costs.

Some folks will say, do we want the system to encourage monied plaintiffs loading up their lawsuits with bogus claims so that even if they only win a dollar in the end, the costs of photocopying alone will bury a defendant? On the other hand, do we want to discourage potentially meritorious claims from being brought?


Being indoctrinated in a system with robust cost shifting, I favour letting the plaintiff who refused to settle and then struck out big time pay costs and legal fees. But I might feel different if I was an american

czakk wrote:

Being indoctrinated in a system with robust cost shifting, I favour letting the plaintiff who refused to settle and then struck out big time pay costs and legal fees. But I might feel different if I was an american

As an American ( ), I think I am culturally disposed to favor lawsuits, which means I enjoy things like the mighty counterclaim, torts like abuse of process, and civil suits on the heels criminal and civil rights cases. I think we will see, for example, a wrongful death suit against George Zimmerman.

But we yanks are admittedly pretty crazy.

I agree with you czakk. GW brought these costs upon themselves, and failed to justify them. CHS offered to settle reasonably, and GW insisted on moving forward and incurring those costs.

To do so they were fully aware of the risk of not winning(or should have been), and as such eating all costs associated with this. They played a zero sum game and lost. Not only did they spend their own money losing, they cost the other party who tried to settle early on money by dragging this out for 2.5 years only for the defendant to walk away mostly unscathed.

Any company that does this should be held responsible for the costs associated with it.

One thing you could argue is that if GW won 25% of the claims, then CHS pays 25% of their costs and vice versa, which would end up being GW paying CHS far more than CHS pays GW, and negating that 25k damages they got.

It's almost like GW still doesn't realize how bad they're in. At what point do they cut their losses and admit defeat?

weeble1000 wrote:

I think we will see, for example, a wrongful death suit against George Zimmerman.

But we yanks are admittedly pretty crazy.

Unlikely I believe for two reasons - 1) no money, he's not OJ and Florida has homesteading laws, can't take his house. No point in suing someone who's basically judgment proof. 2) Florida has an additional hurdle for suing someone who's been acquitted by way of self defence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aerethan wrote:

One thing you could argue is that if GW won 25% of the claims, then CHS pays 25% of their costs and vice versa, which would end up being GW paying CHS far more than CHS pays GW, and negating that 25k damages they got.

That's called a "set-off" or an "offsetting costs" depending on circumstances and jurisdiction. Some places costs always follow the overall victor, in other places each one of the individual motions would have had costs assigned to who ever won that particular motion. And in estate litigation you can also have the estate paying everyone's costs (depending on jurisdiction). This tends to encourage people to challenge wills - they know they won't have to foot the whole bill.

czakk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

czakk wrote:

I think we will see, for example, a wrongful death suit against George Zimmerman.

But we yanks are admittedly pretty crazy.

Unlikely I believe for two reasons - 1) no money, he's not OJ and Florida has homesteading laws, can't take his house. No point in suing someone who's basically judgment proof. 2) Florida has an additional hurdle for suing someone who's been acquitted by way of self defence.

This is off topic, so I PM'd you.